November 2009: We all know the statement that "politics corrupt." But what about other activities in society? Are people there less likely to be corrupted than in politics? What about science, for example?

Scientists are today under extreme pressure of success. This was not always so. Over most part of the last century, scientists could work over long periods without necessarily having to publishing a lot of papers. Niels Bohr, for example, had his paper on the atom model for more than 10 years in his desk (see, e.g., Segrè, 2007). There was no need for him to publish before he was sure about the paper and happy with the contents. He was not in danger of loosing his job for not continuously spitting out a never pausing sequence of papers. Today, for many scientists publishing several peer-reviewed articles per years is a must in order to receive an excellent in the annual evaluations. And publishing in Science and Nature is more and more pivotal for being recognized as an outstanding scientist.

These norm-defining journals seem to have the goal of having spectacular science papers in every issue that make the news worldwide. By aiming for that, these journals have transformed science into a playground for science celebrities. And the editors of Nature and Science control to a large extent who achieves celebrity status and is allowed to enter the playground.

How does one get an article into these journals? Of course, if one has spectacular new science, this works. But if one doesn't, then it helps to make something up. The best chance for that is in a "hot topic", like climate change and climate change impacts, such as ice sheet melting and sea level rise. Detecting a new trend caused by climate change is always good, even if this trend is based on only a few years of data and might turn out next year to be in the opposite direction. Or, if someone published a trend, then a paper on the opposite trend also works, even if this new trend is only a short-time break. And most of these papers are noted by the general press and discussed in the news. A good example are recent papers on trends in the melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (e.g., ...), which are of importance for predictions of future sea level rise.

The result of this ever more rapid sequence of contradicting (but poorly researched) papers in the two journals confuses the public and ruins the credibility of science in general. The recent statement by Rohit Aggarwala, the New York City's director of long-term planning and sustainability, reported in a September 11, 2009 Wall Street Journal article titled "New York City Braces for Risk of Higher Seas" summarizes the dilemma of decision makers in society: "We can’t make multi-billion dollar decisions based on the hypothetical."

In a time where the survival of our civilization depends on scientific knowledge, and where decision makers increasingly turn to science for support in policy and decision making, being in the position to create celebrities and to define the top-level of science carries an enormous responsibility. When will journals like Nature and Science start to live up to this responsibility and ensure that science headlines in the world press don't confuse the decision makers anymore?

References

Segrè, E., 2007. From X-rays to Quarks: Modern Physicists and Their Discoveries. Dover Classics of Science & Mathematics.

If you have a story, thought, or picture worth to be considered as story, thought or picture of the month, please feel free to inform me about it by sending an e-mail to hpplag@unr.edu.