{"id":424725,"date":"2026-02-05T14:37:23","date_gmt":"2026-02-05T13:37:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=424725"},"modified":"2026-02-05T14:37:25","modified_gmt":"2026-02-05T13:37:25","slug":"three-radical-ideas-to-reform-the-scientific-enterprise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=424725","title":{"rendered":"Three Radical Ideas to Reform the Scientific Enterprise"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science journalist Matt Kaplan critiques the current scientific funding and career system for being inefficient, biased toward safe incremental work, favoring established (often older) researchers, and suppressing bold, risky, or novel ideas from younger scientists. Kaplan proposes three provocative reforms to inject more innovation, reduce conservatism, and better support breakthrough potential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

____________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Ross Pomeroy<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From afar, science is a marvelous thing, a humming engine of discovery that simultaneously reveals the wonders of our world and makes it a better place for all to live in. But when you get a little closer and scrutinize science\u2019s innards, you realize that it\u2019s not exactly a well-oiled machine \u2013 far from it. The engine is noisy, inefficient, and in dire need of maintenance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This engine is a metaphor for the modern scientific enterprise, the system through which scientists today solve problems, generate new knowledge, and innovate. By and large \u2013 at least in the academic setting \u2013 it boils down to: secure funding, conduct experiments, publish the results, repeat. This monotonous system is in many ways antithetical to the idealized form of science: delving into the unknown and testing sometimes wild ideas to discover something new and potentially world changing. All too often, funding agencies won\u2019t financially back risky ideas, so money regularly flows to older researchers with many publications under their belt in tried-and-true areas of research. Younger researchers with fresh hypotheses can be ignored, or worse, openly attacked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his forthcoming book, I Told You So!: Scientists Who Were Ridiculed, Exiled, and Imprisoned for Being Right<\/a>, science journalist Matt Kaplan shined a light on some of the pitfalls of the current system through which science is done. More importantly, he also offered some solutions. Here are three of the most radical:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Award grants through a lottery<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To receive money for their work, scientists typically write grants to funding agencies explaining their ideas, how these ideas should be tested, and why they should be funded. Agencies first review these proposals for scientific merit, weeding out the bogus from the legitimate. Afterwards, the proposals are sent to committees where members must decide between \u201cproposals that are good and those that are excellent,\u201d Kaplan described. This process is the most time-consuming and often results in decisions whereby members fall back on factors like age, prestige, and familiarity. In other words, they opt for safety and status quo rather than risky and novel. Instead, at this stage, grants should be awarded randomly with a lottery, Kaplan suggests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Take a note from Willy Wonka with \u2018Golden Tickets\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Imagine a committee meeting in which an expert is thoroughly enamored with a new idea presented in a grant, but their colleagues have reservations. Under present conditions, that grant stands no chance. But with a golden ticket, it does.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe notion behind the golden ticket methodology is that reviewers working on grant-\u00adawarding committees can each be given the power to override their colleagues on one occasion during consideration of applications,\u201d Kaplan explains. \u201cProposals with unusual ideas and higher risks stand a better chance of getting funding than they do now since just a single reviewer can say, \u201cThis is cool, we should give it a try!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, such a system would need safeguards to guard against corruption or blatant favoritism. Any reviewer caught selling their tickets or using them regularly on allies would be suspended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Older researchers should step back.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nobody likes to be told they are old, but the simple fact is that people \u201cbecome more conservative, rigid, and risk averse as they get older,\u201d Kaplan writes. Scientists are no different. They grow more hostile to new ideas while at the same time drawing exorbitant salaries and competing with younger, more driven scientists. Perhaps they should take a step back, for the good of science?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kaplan offered ideas for what they could do instead to promote the scientific endeavor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIf an older scientist has good mentoring abilities, they should move to a smaller lab space, shift to a lower salary, and continue mentoring. If the older scientist is a good author, they should pivot toward writing more books. If they are talented at editing, journals are always in need of people who can help with reviewing and editing articles that come in. What matters most is that they take a step back as they enter old age to free up essential resources for young researchers.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This article was originally published by RealClearScience and made available via RealClearWire.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"A<\/figure>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Science journalist Matt Kaplan critiques the current scientific funding and career system for being inefficient, biased toward safe incremental work, favoring established (often older) researchers, and suppressing bold, risky, or novel ideas from younger scientists. Kaplan proposes three provocative reforms to inject more innovation, reduce conservatism, and better support breakthrough potential.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":424733,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"Explore Matt Kaplan's critique of science funding, advocating for radical reforms to foster innovation and support young researchers.","jetpack_seo_html_title":"Reforming Science: Innovative Ideas to Break Funding Barriers","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":true,"token":"eyJpbWciOiJodHRwczpcL1wvY2xpbWF0ZS1zY2llbmNlLnByZXNzXC93cC1jb250ZW50XC91cGxvYWRzXC8yMDI2XC8wMlwvQVFNUF8yaEt0VjAxMU9TUVdsZVNjckdWbnlsR2hGemIxeFlKNVhGNWZPcmNlT2trYVpFeENOZEdFOHZSSXNJc2JiajlxRmJRM1lHRzJYUUoxQVhjcU9WZDBsSVR3aVIweFRScTNQcjdyV2dreGxadW5FUzEwNndhbWNqVW1oRnctMTAyNHg1NzYucG5nIiwidHh0IjoiVGhyZWUgUmFkaWNhbCBJZGVhcyB0byBSZWZvcm0gdGhlIFNjaWVudGlmaWMgRW50ZXJwcmlzZSIsInRlbXBsYXRlIjoiaGlnaHdheSIsImZvbnQiOiIiLCJibG9nX2lkIjoxNTU4MTI0NDl9.cMucuoY0KVUIudVnnS4Ir5tJJDTRvtLMDZFXs3sOKe8MQ"},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691841203,691841204,691818426,691841201,691841202],"class_list":{"0":"post-424725","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-0lder-researchers","9":"tag-lottery","10":"tag-science","11":"tag-science-journalist-matt-kaplan","12":"tag-willy-wonka-with-golden-tickets","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/AQMP_2hKtV011OSQWleScrGVnylGhFzb1xYJ5XF5fOrceOkkaZExCNdGE8vRIsIsbbj9qFbQ3YGG2XQJ1AXcqOVd0lITwiR0xTRq3Pr7rWgkxlZunES106wamcjUmhFw.png?fit=1440%2C810&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1Mup","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":330571,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=330571","url_meta":{"origin":424725,"position":0},"title":"The Ideological Capture of Academia: Scientific Censorship Motivated by Prosocial Concerns","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"30\/05\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"An article published last November from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) titled \u201cProsocial Motives Underlie Scientific Censorship by Scientists: A Perspective and Research Agenda\u201d exposes a profound issue within the scientific community\u2014censorship driven by ideological motives under the guise of prosocial concerns. This phenomenon has far-reaching\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Censorship\"","block_context":{"text":"Censorship","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=censorship"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Screenshot-2023-09-09-155955.png?fit=1052%2C594&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":363447,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=363447","url_meta":{"origin":424725,"position":1},"title":"The Tide of Accountability is Finally Rolling In","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"26\/01\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"What a spectacle! As the Trump administration reclaims the reins of power, the scientific elite are reacting with utter dismay to policies that prioritize accountability, budgetary discipline, and a reevaluation of priorities. Judging by the tone of despair emanating from recent articles, you\u2019d think the very foundation of science had\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"NIH\"","block_context":{"text":"NIH","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=nih"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Back-to-the-Future-2-SMS-2019-f9f40b8c2b.jpg?fit=1200%2C710&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Back-to-the-Future-2-SMS-2019-f9f40b8c2b.jpg?fit=1200%2C710&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Back-to-the-Future-2-SMS-2019-f9f40b8c2b.jpg?fit=1200%2C710&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Back-to-the-Future-2-SMS-2019-f9f40b8c2b.jpg?fit=1200%2C710&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Back-to-the-Future-2-SMS-2019-f9f40b8c2b.jpg?fit=1200%2C710&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":340077,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=340077","url_meta":{"origin":424725,"position":2},"title":"We teach kids only half the scientific method","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"20\/08\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The vigilant folks at the CO2 Coalition have been saying we are no longer teaching the scientific method in public school science education classes. This puzzled me because the new rules for science education claim to teach kids to think like scientists. I figured the kids would be awash with\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"framework\"","block_context":{"text":"framework","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=framework"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0happy-high-school-students-clapping-in-debate-class-CAIF25224.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0happy-high-school-students-clapping-in-debate-class-CAIF25224.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0happy-high-school-students-clapping-in-debate-class-CAIF25224.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0happy-high-school-students-clapping-in-debate-class-CAIF25224.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0happy-high-school-students-clapping-in-debate-class-CAIF25224.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":301367,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=301367","url_meta":{"origin":424725,"position":3},"title":"Weaponizing \u2018The Science\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/02\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"If a thing, an idea, an opinion, or a consensus is\u00a0contemporary\u00a0is just means it\u00a0\u201cexists now\u201d.\u00a0 The fact that it could or does \u201cexist now\u201d means that it could have been different in the past and might be different in the future.\u00a0","rel":"","context":"In \"consensus\"","block_context":{"text":"consensus","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=consensus"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0spaceforce_1280p.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0spaceforce_1280p.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0spaceforce_1280p.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0spaceforce_1280p.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0spaceforce_1280p.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":352910,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=352910","url_meta":{"origin":424725,"position":4},"title":"The Oppressed Scientist: When Emotions Replace Objectivity in Climate Research","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/12\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"It\u2019s time we asked an important question: who needs cold, unfeeling objectivity when you\u2019re saving the world from a climate apocalypse? Apparently not climate scientists, according to the recently published article in\u00a0Nature Climate Change\u00a0by Schipper, Maharaj, and Pecl.\u00a0This manifesto\u2014masquerading as a scientific commentary\u2014argues that emotions, anxieties, and grievances belong in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0-Scientists-have-emotional-responses-to-climate-change-too.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0-Scientists-have-emotional-responses-to-climate-change-too.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0-Scientists-have-emotional-responses-to-climate-change-too.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0-Scientists-have-emotional-responses-to-climate-change-too.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0-Scientists-have-emotional-responses-to-climate-change-too.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":359775,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=359775","url_meta":{"origin":424725,"position":5},"title":"The AJES Response to May & Crok","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"30\/12\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This post is mostly a list of errors and misinformation in the\u00a0AJES\u00a0(The American Journal of Economics and Sociology) board\u2019s\u00a0response\u00a0by Ted Gwartney and Alexandra Lough to\u00a0May & Crok. But first I applaud the board\u2019s decision to formally publish the paper they invited May & Crok to write for their special climate\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"AJES\u00a0(The American Journal of Economics and Sociology)\"","block_context":{"text":"AJES\u00a0(The American Journal of Economics and Sociology)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=ajes-the-american-journal-of-economics-and-sociology"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0Screenshot-2024-12-30-164404.png?fit=1200%2C652&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0Screenshot-2024-12-30-164404.png?fit=1200%2C652&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0Screenshot-2024-12-30-164404.png?fit=1200%2C652&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0Screenshot-2024-12-30-164404.png?fit=1200%2C652&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0Screenshot-2024-12-30-164404.png?fit=1200%2C652&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424725","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=424725"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424725\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":424736,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424725\/revisions\/424736"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/424733"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=424725"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=424725"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=424725"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}