“You mean like a baker and a cop?*’’ Debunking Michael Nielsen and his meta world
— -
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
― Carl Sagan, [The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark]
“If you want something new, you have to stop doing something old”
― Peter Drucker
I recently had the opportunity to read Michael Nielsen’s (and his collague’s) essay titled “A Vision of Metascience,” which delves into the subject of improving the social processes of science and fostering a culture of scientific development. Nevertheless, I find the essay’s premises dubious, as some of the presented facts appear wrong and misleading.
While Nielsen and his colleague aim to push the boundaries of conventional design thinking (as the language used in the essay attempts to rise above bias by delving into potential meta ideas that transcend the ordinary). But, in reality, their ideas ultimately end up perpetuating the same old market-driven ideas. Far from being truly creative, their proposals merely dress up the status quo in this flashy meta jargon.
It is crucial to approach this essay critically, as it is intended to serve as ‘‘a creative guide’’ for those interested in the field of ‘social process of science’. Let us begin with an examination of the introduction.
Michael Nielsen’s essay begins with an intriguing question for ‘metascientists’ to practice about how aliens might approach science and how it would differ from human methods. While this approach is an interesting starting point — as it immediately attracts many sci-fi lovers and probably engineers that have no social science background — the practice is just not relevant to human scientific endeavors. It has no practical value as it is completely detached from the social processes of science that involve human beings in pursuit of knowledge. What is the use of this practice, if the questions posed are not pertinent to humans and completely excludes the ontologicality of the world in the ‘very’ process of imagining the space?
Designing something for human use requires understanding human needs, behaviors, and culture. To exclude the realities of the humans from the ‘imaginative’ design space is flawed (or it’s simply oxymoron). Science and design must meet the needs of intended ‘beings’, necessitating human involvement in the design process.
—
In his essay, Michael Nielsen raises concerns about the slow and incremental changes in the social processes of science, and he questions if it’s possible to achieve imaginative and scalable changes. The authors define social processes like peer review, grant allocation, and scientist selection as areas that could be enhanced within the scientific community.
He argues that established science organizations- as a small group of organizations control most of the resources in science- have immense power, and are resistant to positive, transformative changes.
So they believe a robust ecosystem of meta science entrepreneurs is necessary to challenge the status quo and bring about meaningful change.
They propose a discovery ecosystem that remains ‘uninfluenced’ by human biases and politics, which they believe could ultimately lead to an improved meta discovery ecosystem.
Nielsen considers the possibility of innovative ideas emerging from outside established institutions and advocates for a more open and flexible scientific ecosystem that fosters creativity and allows for new ideas to flourish.
According to the authors, a metascience design space that occurs “outside of the established institutions’’ immeditaley fosters creativity and can be free of human biases or bureaucratic hurdles. What I find perplexing is how a non-public-affiliated group of individuals can be more immune to the intricate social and cultural factors or biases that significantly impact the process of scientific discovery, as compared to the public ones.
The authors say “There might well have been political or bureaucratic barriers, but if so the problem lies in politics and bureaucracy, not in the merit of the idea.’’ So, they believe the problems in achieving scalable change in the social processes of science can never be ideas- it can only be politics and bureaucracy…
The reality is that this is only a brute ‘assumption’ that they believe is ‘true’, and the question of whether ideas, science, or technology are impeded by politics (and not the other way around) in bringing about scalable change in science is still a heavily debated topic in the field of political economy, and there are scholars who argue otherwise in the literature, such as scholars like Mariana Mazzucato, Luciana Parisi, Cecilia Rikap, Kean Birch, Elettra Bietti and many other.
It is often true some bureaucratic bottlenecks can impede scientific progress, but they should not be portrayed as the ‘‘sole barrier’’. Rather, it is important to provide a balanced perspective and avoid making fait-accompli that could mislead readers.
—
The author examines ways to motivate ‘meta entrepreneurs’ to break boundaries and take risks, such as rewarding those willing to stake their reputations on innovative projects (market-ideology alert!). Based on the essay, it appears that the primary obstacle to funding new individuals or agencies that drive progress in social processes doesn’t seem the lack of monetary incentives in the market or any kind, but rather the absence of private endeavor mechanisms that encourage good science (I guess, as opposed to a bold public initiative).
Therefore, they seek to establish reputation mechanisms before considering any other ambitious projects. After all, why bother building the systems exploring the outer reaches of our solar system when we can prioritize the nudging mechanisms instead (!)?
One proposal involves temporarily reducing funding for established public entities like the NSF and subsequently increasing it to encourage new and unconventional approaches to scientific discovery (market-ideology alert!).
Once again, there seems to be an assumption that reducing public funding would eventually lead to an increase in private investment for large-scale initiatives similar to public NSF.
Like his other arguments, this argument is not a straightforward fact and must be approached with a critical eye. Indeed, Mazzucato’s research has showed that the opposite of this assumption is true. Public fundings are not the impediment of the social processes of science- they’re the accelerator of it. Even major private initiatives like Tesla relied on public investment support due to their potential for promoting scientific progress, before achieving their current level of success (not the other way around).
—
While the essay implies that using meta-science and design can improve the scientific establishment and that a ‘less bureaucratic’ and ‘decentralized approach’ may be helpful, it fails to provide a concrete solution and instead begs a critical examination of its definition of ‘decentralization’. Given that his proposed ‘new’ organizations would also inevitably involve a certain degree of concentration, there can be genuine concern that these proposals could also inadvertently result in centralization.
Crypto economics, for example, is suggested as a means to align individual incentives with collective social good- but then again we don’t know how this concept would be of any help in creating scalable change in science.
The authors recommend reducing grant overhead to foster diverse exploration and creativity, as overheads can promote conformity to grant agents’ trends and perpetuate ‘centralization’.
Yet, despite the suggestion that private meta entrepreneurs should be the primary source of funding, it remains uncertain who will determine the terms and oversee the development and funding of such programs with budgets potentially amounting to billions of dollars?
So, if I understand this right, the plan is to hand over the reins of the science community to private meta entrepreneurs, with no background checks or clear system of accountability, all in the name of ‘‘meta progress’’?
It seems rather counterintuitive that the solution to centralized science is to replace it with non-state institutions that ‘‘potentially’’ have no centralisation prospect, and clear system of accountability, leaving us to wonder if we’ll be jumping from the frying pan and into the fire.
Who will keep these private meta entrepreneurs or new technological systems in check for the sake of “better social processes of scientific progress’’, or will they just run rampant and create a new kind of scientific oligarchy?
It’s like just throwing ideas onto a ship that has no captain, no map, no compass and no real human passengers on board.
Honestly, this proposal for “decentralization” seems vague and more like just another buzzword thrown around in the hype-filled world, leaving us to just wonder.
—
In their essay, today’s science improvement proposals seem to depend on existing science organizations like the NIH, NSF, or Harvard and the text expresses frustration with the current state of the scientific establishment and proposes that organizational change is the key to progress. It acknowledges the resistance of existing organizations to change and the factors hindering the growth of new, scientifically outstanding institutions beyond established ones.
The text directly suggests that bureaucracies are focused on maintaining control and power than advancing science (market-ideology alert!). This assertion is simply untrue — As I will demonstrate in the following sections, since these organizations have achieved significant success in scientific development in the past, it is misleading to attribute their accomplishments simply to ‘‘a desire to maintain power’’. There are achievements that may have been impossible to reach if left **solely** to the mercy of private ventures.
So, the authors advocate for developing insights to create new funding agencies. If a new agency is to be vastly superior to existing funders like the NSF and NIH — and to surpass them in size and influence — shouldn’t we look closely at the organizational structures of these incumbents? And, of course, their budget capabilities.
Or perhaps… we should examine the projects they typically fund and, indeed, their achievements in the past (apologies for the potentially triggering word)?
Firstly, what the authors list as ‘centralized’ ‘captured’ institutions that impede science are suprisingly ‘public institutions’, despite having some private donors, they are still considered as part of the public infrastructure in political economy literature.
Public infrastructure (for those who are not familiar with the literature) refers to large-scale systems or facilities funded by the government or other public entities, and they often fund projects that also support and build other big public infrastructures, like cities, power and energy infrastructures, transportation, telecoms, educational, health- or scientific endeavour that are important for human civilization (like space initiatives).
These projects typically demand considerable investment and may lack clear market incentives for private investment. Public infrastructure like the NSF, NASA, and NIH, which allocate funds for scientific research and development of crucial scientific technologies. These agencies play a critical role in advancing scientific understanding and technological progress.
Certain revolutionary scientific practices may not currently have a market demand, or perhaps may never have one, which can deter private funding. Additionally, there is a complex area of consideration as the “public utility” subject, which explores the constitutional ‘‘limits’’ of these owners of infrastructures and whether they should ever be left at the mercy of private donors. Delving into the public utility topic requires a deep level of understanding, but I will not be addressing it in this blog post.
In short, to build new scientific agencies, it’s crucial to understand the funding landscape and challenges in scaling public infrastructure.
For example, the NSF has an almost $11 billion budget, investing in expensive infrastructure that the private sector is often reluctant to fund but that generates great ‘public value’ (like urban infrastructures, smart cities etc). Institutions like Harvard possess immense funding budgets, such as $2.8 billion, and, quite naturally, establishing a more influential funding agency would necessitate a comparable budget.
An entrepreneur in meta-science who is considering the potential for scaling public infrastructure should look at, for instance, that NASA’s space shuttle program had spent over $210 billion from 1970 to 2011, and it allowed us to explore space in ways that private investment simply wouldn’t have supported in the time period.
Similarly, the significant funding put into testing Einstein’s theory of relativity by NASA and other government agencies helped advance our understanding of physics with supporting projects amounts to $750 millon, when no one was willing to venture.
Government investment has also played a key role in spurring innovation in the private sector. Defense contracts, for instance, helped fund the development of the infant microprocessor industry, which in turn allowed for the development of new devices that were previously unaffordable in the commercial market (The journey of integrated circuits from Bell Labs, Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel into devices such as iPhone or iPad was aided by procurement by the US Air Force and NASA). And this over time, helped drive down costs and improve the capabilities of integrated circuits.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t organizational challenges or political biases at play, but dismissing the value of public investment and seeking to decrease its budget is shortsighted and an ignorant approach driven nothing but ideology. Rather, we should be looking for ways to build on these successes collectively with public and private altogether without dismissing the other to support groundbreaking research and development ecosystem.
—
Michael Nielsen and his colleague also frequently criticize the peer-review system, which they believe is influenced by centralized institutions. They propose reforms to this key social process in science. In reality, there is a lot of discussion in the social processes of science literature regarding the peer review process.
Numerous academics assert that scientific manuscripts should be subject to rigorous peer evaluation conducted by reputable institutions with extensive expertise prior to approval, as they maintain that the foundation of science is inherently a collaborative endeavor. Without such evaluation, these scholars believe, the process becomes ‘self-referential’, which is a concept that warrants further discussion.
Nevertheless, this topic remains open to interpretation and is far from being settled, as it continues to be a subject of significant debate within the academic community.
—
Upon examining Michael Nielsen’s vision of meta-science, it becomes challenging to navigate the text from a social scientist perspective. The text is riddled with assumptions and beliefs, presented as ‘objective’ opinions.
Indeed, it’s important to recognize the flaws in the current scientific process and generate new ideas, but simply degrading public scientific institutions that generate incredible public value without a well-thought-out plan is counterproductive.
Instead, it would be much helpful to identify and address the organizational challenges and biases that exist in the scientific establishment in order to achieve meaningful progress in the social process of science.
This can be done through a combination of efforts, such as increased transparency, collaboration, and diversity within the scientific community, as well as greater investment in research and development.
I guess that generating novel or ‘‘meta’’ ideas may seem effortless when one neglects to engage with the extensive body of literature that has amassed over time in social sciences.
We can use the same analogy with quantum mechanics to understand the absurdity of ignoring the value of public investment in science for the sake of being ‘creative’. Someone who does not have much idea about these issues may well say — ‘I dream of a new meta design space for the quantum mechanics’ and argue something that is completely baseless.
To conclude, while I appreciate Michael Nielsen’s efforts to contribute to the world of science policy, I would suggest that he familiarizes himself with the existing literature before generating allegedly ‘‘new’’ ideas.
He may be knowledgeable in quantum computing, it’s clear that he has limited knowledge of science policy (or more generally, social sciences). It’s is easier to reinventing the wheel than to do the hard work of reading.
It’s disappointing to see someone with his level of influence misleading in the name of creating a new domain for ideas, and making baseless claims.
—
Lastly, as I observe the ongoing debate between market-driven and public-driven approaches to advancing scientific progress, I find it admirable that proponents of increasing public value in innovation, such as Mariana and her team, openly acknowledge their biases. Their institution’s motto, “innovation is political,” reflects this self-awareness. However, their bias is driven by a mission to benefit humans and societies through innovation, rather than — I guess — to aliens(?). This advocacy for a world that ordinary people can relate is a commendable aspect of Mariana’s approach, and certainly not the other way around.
Thanks for reading it!
*the title belongs to Ekin Idiman
References:
- https://scienceplusplus.org/metascience/index.html#part-2-the-decentralized-improvement-of-the-social-processes-of-science
- https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/national-science-foundation?fy=2023
- https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=296755
- https://www.engineering.columbia.edu/news/columbia-university-smart-streetscapes-nsf-center
- https://finance.harvard.edu/files/fad/files/fy22_financial_overview.pdf
- https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9682351
- Science and Its Conceptual Foundations) David L. Hull — Science as a Process_ An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science-University of Chicago Press (1990)
- (Studies in Sociology) M. J. Mulkay (auth.) — The Social Process of Innovation_ A study in the sociology of science-Macmillan Education UK (1972)
- https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/jul/opinion-we-socialize-bailouts-we-should-socialize-successes-too
- https://twitter.com/mazzucatom/status/1010212885702889472?lang=hu
