Is Science Losing Its Way? Reflections on Passion, Truth, and Funding

Is Science Losing Its Way? Reflections on Passion, Truth, and Funding

November 27, 2024

For some time now, I have felt that something is amiss in the world of science—both nationally and internationally. Just last week, I read in The Economist that scientific publishing has reached record highs, with more papers being produced than ever. At first glance, this might seem like a positive trend, but I can't help but wonder: Are we prioritizing quantity over quality?

For me, science is about asking questions, seeking answers, and nurturing a sense of wonder. My PhD supervisor, Professor Frissen, once called science "controlled passion." A scientist's drive is fueled by passion, but it must be tempered by discipline—the rigorous adherence to the scientific method and the courage to seek truth, whether it confirms or challenges one's beliefs. Science is, at its core, a quest for truth.

Yet, today, it feels as though science is more about securing funding than seeking truth. Researchers spend much of their time writing proposals, competing for grants, and aligning their work with the business models of journals and institutions. This isn't just a global phenomenon; we see the same trends in the Netherlands and in Curaçao. The Dutch Research Council (NWO) seems to have shifted its focus to creating a "tropical ecosystem" of funding, conditioning re-searchers to chase the proverbial pot of gold. While no one explicitly states that science is being "colonized," it seems evident.

Take, for example, a recent session I attended about mapping the scientific landscape of the islands. It aimed to identify researchers affiliated with local universities, independent scholars, and diaspora members. While this is undoubtedly a worthwhile initiative, I could-n't help but notice some glaring omissions. Institutions like Carmabi, which have been publishing research for over 60 years, weren’t even mentioned. Nor were independent researchers like me, Frielink, Kun-neman, or economists at the Central Bank.

This makes me think about how science was conducted in the past, often without institutional funding. Wealthy patrons funded research; for instance, Friedrich Engels, an industrialist, supported Karl Marx, who remained poor throughout his life. Science wasn’t about chasing status or securing grants but intellectual contributions to society.

Unfortunately, I see little of that intellectual impact today, especially locally. Too often, science here feels like a vanity project—a means to bolster egos rather than to serve society. Let me share two anecdotes to illustrate this point.

First, ChatGPT was launched on November 30, 2022. By December 14, I had already co-created a program on the phenomenon with Mariano at a time when almost no one had heard of it. Now, everyone claims to be an expert, many without making substantial contributions to the conversation.

Second, not long ago, I argued that our authenticity is the secret to our success as a tourist destination. But now, other researchers present this idea as groundbreaking insight without acknowledgment or source attribution. It’s a reminder that our local scientific culture often lacks basic principles like proper citation.

Don’t get me wrong: I admire scientists like Jan Rotmans and Rutger Bregman (though many might not consider Bregman a "scientist"). They use their rockstar status to bring ideas into public discourse. However, locally, we lack that bridge between research and societal impact. Our science seems stuck in adolescence, and I fear that more funding from the Netherlands won’t address the underlying issues.

So, what’s my point? The science here needs to grow up. It must reclaim its purpose: truth-seeking, intellectual contribution, and social relevance. And I welcome criticism: what am I missing? What am I not seeing clearly?

Let the conversation begin.

Miguel Goede