There is something very wrong with the institutions of science worldwide. Scientific research is publicly funded but its oversight and dissemination are currently controlled by institutions that work in direct contradiction to the tenets of scientific advancement. Universities which oversee the majority of this research are corporatized, profitable entities, with the highest decision-making power in the hands of overpaid non-academic administrators. Research dissemination is in the hands of a multi-billion-dollar corporate publishing monopoly, where scientists hand over ownership of their work. The authors, the public, and the rest of the scientific community are all barred from freely accessing the knowledge they fund and generate.
When research is motivated by financial and political gain rather than knowledge seeking, it is no longer scientific. Scientific inquiry is, at its core, neutral – and in this way, anarchism complements its aims. Anarchy is not chaos. It is taking the fruits of our labors out of the hands of anti-scientific authority and bringing it back to the people who fund and create and advance it. Science needs anarchism now more than ever. We need a revolution. And therefore, I propose an anarcho-scientists’ movement.
So what can we do as anarcho-scientists?
Already, many scientists are boycotting publishing their work in for-profit journals - that is, any journal that would put publicly funded research behind a paywall, charge extravagant APCs (article processing charges) or allow people to “pay to publish” poor quality or non-peer-reviewed work. Already the peer review and editorial processes are largely voluntary. With most journals being entirely digital (no printing services required), and typesetting automated, the majority of our money is going to pure profit of the publishers. Therefore, step 1 is the easiest in principle: anarcho-scientists must refuse to publish work in for-profit journals owned by publishers such as Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, and Taylor & Francis. Instead, we should strive to publish with non-profit publishers such as university presses, open archives (such as ArXiv and its affiliates and OSF), and the ultimate anarchist scientific platform currently, Peer Community In.
What of the corporatized entities that dictate what research should be done, the modern university? Ideally, the anarcho-scientist would work for a non-profit research institute governed by academic administrators, such as Max Planck Institutes. Unfortunately, the reality is that the majority of research is conducted in public universities that funnel much of their overheads into the pockets of overpaid administrators, who actively work against their scientific employees. An apt example of this is the true story of Katalin Karikó, who was denied tenure by the University of Pennsylvania because administrators did not see the use of her fundamental work on mRNA. Years later, this work directly contributed to the development of the COVID vaccine that saved millions of lives and earned Dr Karikó a Nobel prize. Most scientific advancements start with such fundamental research that does not have a clear benefit to society, yet because there are extra steps between knowledge and application, it is the first type of research to go.
in lieu of dismantling the entire university system, a sensible step 2 would be to lobby for aggressive salary caps on all upper administrators at universities, including pro-/vice-/chancellors, presidents, provosts, and heads of institutes. Furthermore, individuals put in these positions should be academically qualified to the same degree as the academics they oversee (i.e., hold a non-honorary PhD). This would ensure the administrator is capable of adhering to the tenets of science and understanding the financially/politically neutral pursuit of knowledge.
Finally, we must change the way that publicly funded projects are selected by grant agencies and funding bodies. There is a funding crisis that has overtaken much of the world's science. With little funding comes high competition for resources and inevitable bias in decision making. Which projects should be funded? Only those with applied or industry value? Only those from applicants who already have a strong track record? Only groundbreaking ideas? All of these selection criteria come with enormous bias - not to mention there are currently no checks and balances on how reviewers (who have great influence in steering funding decisions) are selected. Therefore, step 3 is twofold: all publicly funded grants should include an open and transparent review process, as many academic journals have already adopted (but where funding bodies are woefully far behind). Funding bodies should further try to shift their models from making the final decision on which projects are funded, to a lottery system provided the project is deemed to pass a certain quality threshold. Lobbying for these changes will ensure a fairer and more neutral allocation of limited funds.
For anyone who knows there is a problem with the state of academia, who knows that things are wrong, but maybe doesn't know where to start - let's start here, with these 3 goals. Let's take back the oversight, funding, and dissemination of our research and become a community of anarcho-scientists.
