When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Switzerland

You've Heard Of Slow Food. Introducing Slow Science

"Science needs time. Bear with us, while we think," declares a new movement of researchers pushing back against the demands to always make breakthroughs and publish findings.

Not so fast!
Not so fast!
Pascaline Minet

GENEVA — When the Slow Movement started in 1989 with the creation of the Slow Food organization — to protest the opening of a McDonald's in Rome — its objectives were to promote quality over speed, to defend cultural diversity and to challenge the ever-increasing pace of our lives. Since then, the concept has spread and expanded to such fields as traveling, designing ... and science.

Slow science supporters object to how modern scientific research is being conducted, and they criticize the pressure to publish as many studies as possible in scientific journals. Instead, they demand more time to carry out their research and publish their work.

These ideas were expressed in a 2010 one-page document entitled "The Slow Science Manifesto," and published online by a group of anonymous Berlin-based researchers.

"We do need time to think," it reads. "We do need time to digest. We cannot continuously tell you what our science means, what it will be good for, because we simply don't know yet. Science needs time. Bear with us, while we think.”

Isabelle Stengers, philosopher at the Free University of Brussels and co-author of the book Another Science is Possible! Manifesto for a Slowing Down of Sciences, explained at a recent lecture that the manifesto ideas are relatively simple. "But they offer the advantage of creating a consensus in which scientists who find their working conditions painful recognize themselves," she said.

What exactly do scientists suffer from? Mentioned most often is the assessment of their work. The most crucial criterion these days is how frequently they are published in scientific journals. Priority is given to the most prestigious publications and those that are most often quoted in other journals. These are characterized as "high-impact" journals.

"The problem is that this assessment method leads researchers, and especially the younger ones, to produce a large quantity of articles so as to reach a certain quota of citations," explains University of Strasbourg chemist Jean-François Lutz. "The system thus favors superficial studies instead of meticulous work, and sometimes leads to fraud or results that are impossible to reproduce." In that sense, "fast science," like fast food, is synonymous with poor quality.

Why the need for speed?

"The slowness demanded by supporters of slow science is also necessary to what I call "friction" — that is to say, exchanges with other fields and, more generally, with society," Isabelle Stengers says. "Today, we believe that a scientist who reads the journals is wasting his time. The fast trend I oppose is the one that is turning the scientific community into an army capable of destroying everything that stands in its way because it must reach its destination on time."

Stengers says that researchers are increasingly cut off from the rest of the world, and they have become so ultra-specialized that there is now a lack of imagination.

[rebelmouse-image 27088000 alt="""" original_size="500x404" expand=1]

The good old days? — Photo: J Brew

Another philosopher, Pantheon-Sorbonne University's Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, adds, "The slow science movement also claims the right to the diversity of knowledge, according to which human and social sciences do not lend themselves well to evaluations based on productivity criteria."

Still, she believes that scientists are barking up the wrong tree. “The fast versus slow opposition polarizes the two sides of the argument and prevents it from turning into a real controversy,” she argues.

Denis Duboule, a geneticist at the University of Geneva, is circumspect about the slow idea. "It's true that the way research is carried out nowadays is a problem," he says. "Scientists who publish the most are not necessarily the best, and vice versa. Some also tend to choose their research not according to their fields of interest but depending on whether they can obtain funds. That said, research nowadays is costly, and you have to find a way to demonstrate your results. For me, it's more the utilitarian ambition of science that puts scientists under pressure, as it implies that each study has an immediate goal."

Is the grueling pace really the primary cause of scientists' unhappiness? Although not all of them agree with this diagnosis, the issue at least raises the question of how research is being conducted and assessed. "The golden age during which scientists could think at leisure, without worrying about anything other than their work has in fact never existed, because they always had to look for funding," sas Alain Kaufman, who leads the Science-Society Interface at the University of Lausanne. "So there's no point in being nostalgic. We must nonetheless denounce the speed pathologies and especially the tyranny of the impact factor."

Such initiatives do exist, although they are still feeble. Last year, scientists and scientific journal editors published The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, which "recognizes the need to improve the ways in which the outputs of scientific research are evaluated."

"When scientists are recruited in particular, we should take into account not only how many articles they have published but also look into the contents and other aspects of their work," Kaufman says. The argument seems to have convinced some in Switzerland, where the Swiss National Science Foundation now tries to take these considerations into account.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Stories from the best international journalists.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Green

China Can't Kick Its Coal Habit

China has endured two months of scorching heatwaves and drought that have affected power supply in the country. Spooked by future energy security, Beijing is reinvesting heavily in coal with disastrous implications for climate change.

The Datang International Zhangjiakou Power Plant shown at dusk in Xuanhua District of Zhangjiakou City, north China's Hebei Province.

Guangyi Pan and Hao Yang*

Two months of scorching heatwaves and drought plunged China into an energy security crisis.

The southwest province of Sichuan, for example, relies on dams to generate around 80% of its electricity, with growth in hydropower crucial for China meeting its net-zero by 2060 emissions target.

Sichuan suffered from power shortages after low rainfall and extreme temperatures over 40℃ dried up rivers and reservoirs. Heavy rainfall this week, however, has just seen power in Sichuan for commercial and industrial use fully restored, according to official Chinese media.

The energy crisis has seen Beijing shift its political discourse and proclaim energy security as a more urgent national mission than the green energy transition. Now, the government is investing in a new wave of coal-fired power stations to try to meet demand.

In the first quarter of 2022 alone, China approved 8.63 gigawatts of new coal plants and, in May, announced C¥ 10 billion (around $1.4 billion) of investment in coal power generation. What’s more, it will expand the capacity of a number of coal mines to ensure domestic supply as the international coal market price jumped amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Stories from the best international journalists.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
Already a subscriber? Log in
Writing contest - My pandemic story
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ