Incremental Science: Papers and Grants, Yes; Discoveries, No

Abstract

Today, the effectiveness of scientific research is increasingly often determined by the size of grants obtained, the number of publications, and the level of their prestige, as well as the ability to attract public attention, rather than by well-defined problems and stringent methods of their solutions. This trend is disastrous for science. Bibliometric data, useful as a subsidiary method of evaluation, cannot replace expert opinions based on the analysis of the content of the paper. The pressure making scientists publish is leading to poor quality publications. The irreproducibility of research papers, amounting in oncology up to 75%, is now commonplace. This results in an incremental character of science, when the research is reduced to a systematic refinement of the available data. As a consequence, researchers and financing focus on known and common research directions, while there are still many understudied areas avoided by researchers due to the risk of failure and loss of publications. For instance, 1000 of 4000 E. coli genes remain absolutely uninvestigated. Clearly, there are even more unknown areas in complex multicellular organisms, including humans. This has created prerequisites to reduce the probability of large scientific discoveries, which are often made by chance. Science needs better financing and this is aggravated by the fact that the allocated funds are distributed without considering the scientific value of research and the accidental character of discoveries. The author draws attention to the importance of financial support of scientific schools that are the most probable centers for obtaining new scientific knowledge and preparing the ground for scientific discoveries.