“Creativity in science, as in art, cannot be organised. It arises spontaneously from individual talent. Well-run laboratories can foster it, but hierarchical organisations, inflexible bureaucratic rules, and mountains of futile paperwork can kill it. Discoveries cannot be planned, they pop up, like Puck, in unexpected corners” (Perutz, 2002).

One aspect we tend to forget is that not all of us will “Puck!” and celebrate the important discovery. In fact, in the historic sense, only few of us will rejoice that moment. From this simple fact and the transformative power of scientific discovery & understanding, it follows that society should foster ‘well-run laboratories’ in universities & research institutes, expecting benefits from the whole scientific labour, but not from every individual scientist. Furthermore, the scientific process requires different types of fellows: dreamers, pedants, explorers, deep thinkers, talented experimentalists, perfectionists, curious minds, stubborn minds, etc. Not all of the characters required for the orchestra can be “high-producers”. Even carelessness is known to have led to important discoveries, whereas some consider that parts of our technological progress were motivated by laziness, in the sense of a conscious effort to make our life easier. Finally, having people work on similar fields helps removing private errors, while teaching is the best method I know of figuring out gaps in our knowledge. Universities are special as long as they nurture all of the above. Therefore, the key questions of policy should refocus from individual assessment to how one builds an ethical, scientific culture through higher education and well-supported institutions.

.

…journals and editors are in thrall to impact factors. Editors know there will be more citations if they select papers in areas where many scientists are currently working. This means that manuscripts in unfamiliar fields tend to be rejected, while articles in currently fashionable fields are preferred.

This practice should be a hallmark of a poorly-run scientific journal. Knowing that an editor would consider the popularity of a paper ahead of its scientific value, would discourage me from approaching them to handle the publication of my efforts in science. It would signal a breach of trust. After learning, on top of all other rational arguments, about the game-playing of the system – it’s a fake! – I have concluded, again, that only fools take into account impact factors in judging a work. Of course, in a world where the “triumph of vanity as sensible as selecting athletes on the basis of their brand of track suit” has become a norm, one needs to consider the consequences of ignoring “the rules of the game”.

Signs of Change?

As much as I want to endorse your optimism in closing, my experience is reverse. Leaders of my scientific field are losing one after the other their positions in their mid forties, in their mid fifties. (I also lost mine in the – so called – “first world”). Students who have come to appreciate their discoveries and contributions are bewildered when I break the news to them. So many colleagues shake their heads in despair & disapproval, but there is little action. The managers who destroy science keep increasing their salaries (see my comment on how bankers work above). Not even suicide appears to bring change in the right direction. Rather, I see more and more change in the wrong direction, with extensive copying of the horrific errors you rightly criticise in your essay. But we do agree to the only reasonable solution and I thank you profoundly for your essay and its conclusion: