I want to finish up my discussion of scientific collectivism by starting where I left off a few weeks ago before a needed break.

At the conclusion of my last post I wrote that the subtle institutional encouragement of collectivist science is sometimes (albeit rarely) good, but also has bad consequences. I suggested that one of the bad consequences is scientific groupthink, which leads to “trends in neuroscience” thinking-and causes a statistical convergence on what people say are “the important problems in neuroscience.” (Insert your field here). I also argued that this was responsible for the trends we see in science.

2. More formal types of scientific collectivism

We have no objective measure to tell us whether these so called trends are where our scientific and economic efforts should be focused, but trendy science is easily funded by grant reviewers and quickly published by high-level journals. Therefore, I would argue that trends in scientific thought are the currents upon which the boat of scientific progress rides. The problem is, maybe the currents are taking us farther from the shoreline. Without a map or compass, we have no idea, and thus all directions should be given equal weight. You can see clearly that scientific groupthink has direct economic consequences, and by leveling the field of scientific thinking (by removing outliers, people who do not follow the trends) we all hold back scientific innovation and paradigm shifting thought.

My question for you is: do you think a scientist such as Einstein would have been able to get funding in this environment? (You can give me a better example if you would like-I just can not think of names right now-how about Ramon y Cajal, for instance?).

Collectivist scientific groupthink also leads us directly to scientific idolatry. How many times have you been at a meeting where so-and-so’s paper was the “hot paper.” Then so-and-so publishes all the papers they write after that in the best journals even when they are not so good. This is controversial-the kind of things scientists grumble about in private, but rarely discuss in public. I would argue that there is a (sometimes subtle) idolatry in play here (idolatry in the case of both editors/reviewers in journals and by grand reviewers). By the time the ideas of Prof. X have been suggested to be misguided, Prof. X has a tenured position and has reaped the economic benefits of the idolatry encouraged by this type of groupthink.

I would also argue that this is as dangerous as it is productive. Prof. X gains status and is name-dropped at parties and journal clubs. This is not dangerous in itself-Prof. X does have some good ideas and they should be considered The danger comes when whatever Prof. X says (or more likely writes), is followed by a segment of the scientific population and are deemed “important” and any challengers to Prof. X have a hard time making their case because of the legions of incalcitrant followers. (No I am not picking some personal bone; I have mostly observed this with others I have known).

I see this more and more in my own field and it worries me, do you think about these things in your own field?

Thus, there is an inherent paradox in scientific collectivism. Science is a social activity, and as such it requires cooperation. This cooperation is only matured on the backs of individual actors. Scientific cooperation does not necessitate scientific collectivism, however. Unfortunately, in the modern American post-secondary educational system, I see this happening more and more.

This paradox is best summed up with a quote from the wonderful Michal Polanyi:

“Any attempt to organize the group … under a single authority would eliminate their independent initiatives and thus reduce their joint effectiveness to that of the single person directing them from the centre. It would, in effect, paralyze their cooperation.”

In our scientific education, we need to bring these ideas (mostly discussed by grumbling scientists in bars and backrooms) to the forefront. We need to resist the temptations for scientific collectivist groupthink and idolatry the internet, wikis, cloud computing, and other electronic media provide us.

What do you think?