Innovation & Ignorance. How Science Funding Schemes Deter the Production of Uncomfortable Knowledge
ABSTRACT
Scientific research funding schemes emphasise innovation. However, this emphasis steers scientists away from producing what Rayner would refer to as ‘uncomfortable knowledge’. This is knowledge that spans the void between wicked problems and the solutions required to solve them. I will first, draw from my masters’ thesis to explore how policy discourse in Western societies directs research funding towards short-term ‘innovation’ outcomes. This drives scientific research towards applied solutions, while marginalising uncertain, long-term and often highly original work unpicking the complex sociobiological entanglements that so often produce and perpetuate disease and pollution.
Secondly, I will argue that a bias towards innovation funding actively produces ignorance and shrinks the complex evidence-base that might build socio-political licence to not only innovate, but regulate. In addition, scientists in precariously employed work are less likely to engage publicly, as controversial activities might erode further funding opportunities.
Effectively, innovative-centric policies erode political and societal capacity to address the sustainable development goals (SDGs). While economists encourage public-interest innovation, they fail to identify how society creates a safe space for science to identify the magnitude of harm and quantify risk. Absent public-interest knowledge, public resources directed to innovation appears vulnerable to capture by political and commercial interests.
Western Sydney University. 22 November 2021 – Friday, November 26, 2021.
Paper Presentation November 26, 2021. Ref: Book of Abstracts
In today’s presentation, I will discuss how innovation-based funding policies funnel science production away from upstream research that might identify the drivers of disease and pollution. Current policies effectively marginalise and fail to fund this research. Because such research may uncover public harms it is potentially uncomfortable knowledge which may conflict with the principles and goals of powerful institutions.
This presentation draws from my Masters’ thesis completed this year. My research explored the methods by which science policy directly influences the decision-making practices of funding committees and the funding outcomes of scientists. I found that political, economic, cultural and social factors co-produce funding environments which privilege certain institutional actors while stymying others My thesis identified that scientists who seek to research the upstream drivers of disease have much greater barriers to research than scientists who focus on innovation.
My research is important because the effect of not funding upstream research produces and perpetuates ignorance in the socio-political and scientific demosphere – shrinking the evidence base that should unite scientists, policy makers, the public and build political licence – which might then result in public interest regulation of those upstream drivers. An absence of public interest scientific knowledge that can drive policy has important implications for the sustainable development goals. So often, absence of information results in the perpetuation of pollution and of harm.
I wanted to understand how policy and science in New Zealand could remain silent on the matter of endocrine disrupting chemicals – EDCs. There is consensus in the scientific literature. Chemicals to act at the hormone level, and interfere with and disrupt hormone function. Both U.S. and European policy and regulation has acknowledged the effects of EDCs – for decades. In medicine, the potential for chemicals to alter hormone functioning is non-controversial. Medicines are ordinarily developed to interact with human hormonal processes. Yet New Zealand does not have a single policy on EDCs, nor a scientific quorum of experts.
My masters focussed on the linkages between science policy, the decision-making processes of funding committees, and the experiences of basic (or physical) scientists and allied researchers in securing funding for basic science research
My research fills a gap, as there is very little research exploring the interplay of state policy and knowledge production and the barriers to funding for established institutional researchers. The work of Whitley, Gläser and Laudel and colleagues informed my research. Their research identified persistent themes, shifts in policy, governance and funding that have reduced the autonomy of scientists: the rise of hypercompetitive funding environments; the shift of state goals to align with economic goals; the impact of peer cultures in funding environments; and the emphasis on science production that has commercial value.
My research adopted a 2 pronged approach – I firstly analysed science policy and logics; and then conducted in-depth interviews with researchers and basic scientists – which I now briefly outline.
Policy
Firstly, I explored the historic trajectory and the political dynamics of science production over the last 3 decades. I then conducted a discourse analysis of the key science policy documents.
Through this process I identified that policy discourse emphasised innovation, translation and excellence logics, and that health research was required to be translatable into clinical settings. I identified that these key logics favour economic growth, innovation and accord with biomedical cultures and norms. These logics were normative throughout the policy and funding environment. For an outsider peering in, these logics could appear responsible and accountable.
What is innovation? Government policy documents, research articles and the OECD are quite clear – innovation is ‘the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service) or process, a new marketing method, or a new organisational method in business practices, workplace organisation or external relations’. Importantly – an innovation must be practically implementable.
In health sector research, to be considered for funding, the consequent knowledge that arises from the scientific research process must be able to be practically implementable (or translated), as a product, process or marketing method inside the health sector. Therefore, in health research, if a proposal is viewed by funding panels as ‘translatable’ it must fulfil innovation norms as per the OECD – normatively, a biomedicine or a technical improvement that can be rolled out inside the health sector.
When science policy refers to ‘excellence’ this infers normative science that reflects the norms of a particular scientific discipline. Yet excellence in science is almost impossible to define. Novel or original research, particularly if it is interdisciplinary, is often viewed as outside norms of excellence.
Research
My research on science-policy both informed and was informed by in-depth interviews with 15 Australian and New Zealand researchers and scientists, most of whom were directly employed in scientific research. Two-thirds were in senior positions, working as professors or associate professors. I sought to unpack their experiences in navigating research funding schemes and securing funding. Approximately half of the scientists had experience working in EDC related research. One quarter worked in endocrine-related but non-EDC research. A final quarter worked in related fields, where the research they attempted to get funding for, was related to upstream drivers of disease. Approximately 90% of the group had applied for funding grants, and many had sat on funding panels.
The interviews emphasised that hypercompetitive funding environments may mean that only 10% of proposals are funded. The real-world effect for the scientists when a funding proposal was considered to be outside the normative parameters, was that it would be downgraded and unlikely to be funded. When only a small margin of basic science research projects are funded, a ‘non-innovative’ proposal will frequently be downgraded. The competitive environment shapes decision-making to prioritise conservative science that can be understood clearly by funding panels.
For physical scientists, the research trajectory that most complemented political and funding panel priorities, and that is most easily measurable was biomedical research. Biomedical research aims to discover new biological pathways or mechanisms, the discovery of which will enable translation into innovative processes, diagnostics or treatments. Translation is a biomedical term that infers research outcomes will be translatable into clinical settings – inside the health sector. I had earlier identified the key logic of innovation, however the importance of ‘translation’ and its relationship to biomedical research, did not come to light until the scientists discussed the importance of translatable science in the interviews.
For scientific peers and clinicians on funding panels, the prevailing policy discourse and logics emphasising innovation, translation and excellence was culturally normative. Historically panel members had been awarded funding that conformed to these norms – so there was no reason to question them. Their work was to approve applications and interventions to manage or mitigate a single disease which could be incorporated in clinical practice.
Whereas the scientists seeking to research the environmental drivers were driven by a distinctly different set of logics. Rather than identifying a molecular pathway involved in a single disease, for example, they wanted to understand interrelationships between exposures and biological effects. How these exposures could result in cascading effects across a biological organism, and differ by life-stage. These scientists recognised that drivers of disease could set in place the conditions for the production of multiple disease-responses. They were concerned with preventing the production of disease rather than the management and mitigation of disease.
With these logics, basic science proposals that draw attention to the upstream drivers of disease – cancer-causing oestrogens in the diet, intergenerational exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals, or the effects of childhood exposures on intelligence – was frequently impossible to fund. This science was often highly original, capturing effects beyond a single disease perspective. For funding committee panels this science was too uncertain, too intangible and did not fit innovation norms.
The medicalisation of scientist peers was a controlling factor that I had not recognised prior to the interview process. Peers accepted that science funding for basic science research in health would be directed to a product, process, good or service that would be rolled out inside the health sector. However this conflicts with evidence that most chronic disease is driven by social and economic determinants. The science demonstrates that the global obesity and chronic disease epidemic is predominantly driven by environment – income status, work conditions and locality (factors which are rarely a choice); and less often, by lifestyle factors (which are a choice). Most people with obesity and chronic disease have more than one condition. Multimorbidity is the norm for most people.
A medicalised perspective fails to draw attention to issues of justice and equity. It assumes that the person on 3 medications can add another 7 medications. Medical equity is different from health equity. Medical equity implies that as long as someone suffering from the diseases of poverty is treated equally inside the health system – it is Ok. This disregards the suffering inherent in multimorbidity, and the pervasive health effects of polypharmacy.
The scientists who wanted to look upstream, were more likely to draw attention to ethical dilemmas – and the cognitive dissonance – inherent in the medicalised perspective.
My concern over the policy and scientific silence around EDCs arose from this perspective: if society cannot understand the risk posed by modern technologies (from ultraprocessed food to synthetic chemicals), society cannot appropriately steward them. It’s very clear that the expansion of genetic and molecular knowledge over the 20th and early 21st century – for biomedical application – has been incredibly valuable. In contrast, the pace of research expansion looking at the environmental drivers of disease has been dismal.
We live in a world where over 60% of the total volume of chemicals are recognised as hazardous to health. These chemicals are often persistent and accumulative. The knowledge gaps concerning the relationship between these chemicals – and our biological vulnerability – are astronomical. We now know that a chemical exposure can set the stage for disease 3 generations later. We know that early life exposures to babies and children can profoundly affect their intelligence and life quality 3 decades later. Our research commitment does not reflect this risk.
It’s very clear that science and technology is prioritised by governments for its potential to contribute to GDP. The level of patent applications remains an acknowledged proxy for economic growth. I quote: ’the most relevant performance indicators of national system of innovation should reflect the efficiency and effectiveness in producing, diffusing and exploiting economically useful knowledge’.
Therein lies the rub – scientists seeking to draw attention to the upstream drivers of disease, species decline and pollution produce what Rayner has described as uncomfortable knowledge. Uncomfortable knowledge is knowledge, which if produced, is likely to conflict with the principles and goals of powerful institutions. This form of scientific knowledge is directly political. It can be suppressed or simply remain unfunded and undone.
Uncomfortable knowledge overlaps with sociological studies of ignorance. Ignorance is important as such science that looks upstream to the production of harm potentially interferes with the principles and profit margins of powerful institutional interests.
In science, power over the production of knowledge is a function of historic access to resources. The framing out of knowledges – which includes undone science – relating to human health harm produces a form of ignorance which can prevent or delay social groups and sympathetic experts from seeking justice.
I identified that innovation logics actively produce ignorance in the scientific demosphere – by shrinking the evidence base that should unite scientists, policy makers, the public and build political licence, create the authority for public interest regulation in order to protect health and the environment.
Innovation dominance in science policy is explicitly political in two ways. It valorises science and technology without permitting skepticism as to how science and technology will impact biological life. It also forces out – the uncomfortable science that might draw negative attention to the principles and goals of the polluters, of big chem, big food, and big pharma.
Innovation can be useful, if directed by values that acknowledge the potential for human activities to harm human health and destabilise environmental planetary boundaries.
My thesis has drawn attention to the barriers to funding for scientists who aim to shed light on the upstream drivers of disease. It may also shed light on current policy structures that similarly disable humanity from addressing the most basic of the sustainable development goals – the protection of human health and freshwater.
Finally, let us engage in a thought experiment. Without independent science drawing attention to upstream harm, states continue to emit synthetic chemicals at an ever-expanding rate. There is little scientific evidence and only weak political pressure to either stop emissions or strip the persistent and toxic chemicals out of drinking water. As there are no drivers of evidence to regulate, there are no drivers to prompt innovation in these fields. The political ignorance in the demosphere, results in no pressure to act pre-emptively and protectively. Then of course, there is no need to develop the technology to strip chemicals from the waste-stream. The synthetic chemicals in that waste can then be dispersed into waterways and onto agricultural land. These chemicals are persistent, and not readily degradable, and so they feedback through food and drinking water in an eternal toxic loop.
I hope I have shed some light on how science policy effectively prevents us from going upstream to untangle wicked problems that have intersecting political, social and economic drivers. As I have discussed, innovation, translation and excellence logics directly favour economic growth. These logics are infused through policy processes and funding cultures – which directly privileges the funding of biomedical research. These logics result in the downgrading of research such as EDC research, that conflicts with these logics and which potentially contradicts techno-optimistic norms concerning the benefits of economic growth.