Doing Science in an Echo Chamber
I was invited to talk about the future of science in Mexico. Because of this, I asked myself if I was authorized to speak about this topic. Am I a person of science?
I have postgraduate studies, work at a university as a professor, lead a research department, direct a specialization, and co-editor in chief of a scientific journal that I founded ten years ago, but does that entitle me to speak on the future of science?
I concluded that yes because I wear glasses and have a lab coat, and because since my first job as a professional in 1999 (as a research assistant and editorial assistant of a scientific journal at Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Xochimilco), I have dedicated myself to producing knowledge. For some years now, I have also accompanied other people in the process of generating and disseminating their knowledge, so I think I have enough elements to address the possible futures of science in Mexico, at least from my trench: the studies of human behavior, including the behavior around the cultural fact of the future.
There is no "Mexican science"; it is not a cohesive and harmonious entity. Instead, people and organizations from the public, private, and civil spheres try to carry out this high-risk sport of research in Mexico.
Below, I share with you some trends and driving forces that, from my point of view, shape and will continue to do so in the scientific practice in Mexico.
Cloud computing. I remember my first formal research very well; it happened in an era before the Internet and computers (both already existed, but I did not have access to either). I used to consult the library catalog manually and borrowed analog books. For my master's thesis, I chose three documentaries, one of them challenging to get: I traveled the world, talked to many people, and had to go through many labyrinths to get the material. The Internet completely changed the way we do research, and the next significant leap was made thanks to cloud computing, which brought with it the possibility of collaborative work in real-time, storage, and shared access to large sets of information,* among other benefits. As Genrich Altshuller warns, there is no innovation without undesirable effects: we now face severe problems of digital hoarding, and there is no drive folder bigger enough to store so many materials, with the high carbon footprint that this entails.
Constant Distractions and Multitasking. One of my daily battles is to find the space to isolate myself and concentrate enough to reflect and write. I spend a lot of time in airports and airplanes, and I use those transitions to write, but it's never enough. Giving yourself the time to think is a punkish and necessary act to research, but the battle is fiercer. We are trapped in a giant echo chamber where attention is the holy grail. Finding temperance of character and grit to maintain attention is one of the most significant challenges scientists face today. It's like wanting to write a deep dissertation in the middle of a party with loud music, people dancing, and a martini in your hand.
False or Shady Information. We inhabit a large pool of false information that is massively reproduced. I am not a Luddite, but I recognize that the irresponsible use of generative AI platforms (and my aunts' WhatsApp) contributes to amplifying this effect. Scientific work feeds on pre-existing and new information, which the authors generate. Still, using the critical apparatus remains crucial: I notice alarming signals that indicate the disregard of citations, a hype that ignores the referential character of knowledge. It is enough to take a look at Google's patents database to understand that even the most revolutionary invention dialogues with other previous inventions.
Fraud and Plagiarism. It is common for people with inadequate preparation to declare themselves professionals in a field of knowledge (medicine, future studies, engineering, and many others). I note that this fraudulent conduct and the widespread practice of plagiarism damage scientific work, making it increasingly arduous.
Gig Economy. Scientific production is not free from this incredible wave. It is increasingly common for me to work as a freelance researcher, collaborating in international teams and being paid per project. Fortunately, I have a permanent job with social security. Still, I understand that is privileged: many scientists worldwide must ensure their livelihood by participating in auctions and tenders. The counterpart to this is the flexibility to collaborate with different teams, the possibility of having significant cultural exchanges, and remote work. Still, as the Poison song says, "Every rose has its thorn."
Impact Factor or "Quote me, and I quote you." The fact that the impact factor of scientific journals is based fundamentally on citation is ominous. It may have made sense in the beginning, but in this era, evaluating the impact of a journal based on the average number of citations of its papers is insane; there will be those who say that I'm envious since the journal I edit does not yet have an impact factor endorsed by Web of Science, and yes, perhaps it's true. Still, this huge problem causes authors to agree to cite each other without any other reason but for their articles to rise in the rankings! Sometimes, this phenomenon is linked to others, such as nepotism and aggravated corruption; this is one of the most critical and dominant trends that require immediate problematization. However, I find a radical change improbable in the coming years because it would compromise large publishing and scientific content management businesses.
Migration. Migration is not new; over the years, Mexico has been open to migration, enriching us. The practice of science mutates at the pace of culture, although this fact is not free of tensions in an era of high competition and gentrification.
Organized Crime. A few years ago, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social published a disturbing series called Fieldwork in Violent Times; this work allowed me to understand that many other professionals besides physicians and journalists are victims of cartels, human trafficking, forced disappearance, sexual abuse and many other disasters that compromise life and the generation of knowledge.
Process Automation. In the last few days, I have coordinated a job that includes many interviews that I have to transcribe and analyze, as well as ethnographic work that I have done many times over the years; now, it is possible to transcribe in a few minutes automatically. I also correct my texts with the help of intelligent proofreaders. Tools have always accompanied scientific work, and the recent explosion of apps and platforms has brought us many wonders, which I love. However, these new and exciting solutions often bring undesirable effects under the arm. For instance, the automatic interview transcriber generates messy texts that must be corrected by humans.
Quantum Computing. Although Mexico is nascent in access to quantum computing, and some authors doubt its existence, if access to this type of service becomes a reality and expands, many problems of significant complexity could be addressed. I wrote about this a few years ago for Nexos magazine; the column (in Spanish) is available here.
Peer Reviewing. Scientific communications through books, journals, and conference papers are evaluated using the standard of anonymous peer review, a system that dates back to the 18th century, maybe more. Peer review is the last bastion that guarantees the quality of scientific work. Still, it is not free of pitfalls: in most publications around the world, the review work is not paid (it is assumed that the professor-researcher has a full-time position and receives a salary from a university, so somehow that service is already paid), so it is difficult to get good reviewers, to get the review process done on time and that the author does not collapse when reading the result of the assessment. Peer review gives me a bittersweet feeling (as an author, as an editor, and also as a reviewer). I understand its relevance, but hacking the system is complicated. We must problematize it and improve it as far as possible.
Precarization of Scientific Work. It is no secret that the National Council of Humanities, Sciences, and Technologies of Mexico is going through a process of crisis and gradual dismantling that has jeopardized many researchers around the country. Being the entity that produces and administers public policy in science, its weakening calls for urgent attention. Of course, everything in the Council, including managing resources, establishing priority topics, and making other decisions, shapes how science is done in Mexico and its scope. This has exacerbated the precariousness of scientific work, which is becoming increasingly difficult to carry out. As I write these lines near midnight on Sunday, I meditate on the fact that, despite considering myself privileged, research is a luxury for me. I also think of all those researchers who have to teach dozens of classes to guarantee their livelihood, with hardly any time left for research, which leads to harmful practices such as content recycling, self-plagiarism, and plagiarism, among other horrors that I do not justify, but I do understand.
Unequal Distribution of Wealth. This driving force is a cousin-sister to the previous trend; the practice of science reproduces gaps that affect other aspects of national life. Of course, in the case of Mexican science, there are also castes and difficulties to achieve specific mobility, as well as rival factions, pitched battles for resources, and all kinds of wheeling and dealing that distract us from the primary task, which is to generate and disseminate new knowledge.
These dominant behaviors fill me with rage and dismay; however, day by day, I observe willing researchers who love knowledge and who exercise a curiosity more potent than all these krakens.
I have no predictions to share with you but concerns and glimmers of hope to speculate about. Even though the outlook looks very gray, the consistent work of scientists can contribute to a surprise in the coming years.
What do you think?
*In this specific matter, the case of Sci-Hub is one of the most exciting and provocative in recent years. However, it is illegal; Mexico is among the top 10 countries that use this shadow repository.
