LAUSR

The recent paper in PNAS by Chu and Evans (1), “Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science,” questions the maxim “more is better” when investing in science. They conclude the consequential increased production of new information is detrimental. Investigators increasingly rely on a few frameworks. Ideas challenging these frameworks are lost in the information overload and so not explored. Resilience is undermined. Their analysis is very interesting (1). It must strike many researchers as reflecting a cultural change, over recent decades, in their field. The authors, in discussing their findings, suggest the information overload per se causes ossification, as illustrated by their sandpile analogy. I question this. The authors and I think reducing the scientific enterprise is impractical. They suggest a need for fostering the consideration of innovative, challenging ideas. They do not propose how this can be achieved. Recognizing the problem, however, may help us to transcend it. The increase in information has had a detrimental impact on my field of immunology. This change is not inevitable, nor does it call for diminished investment. Thomas Gold’s article, “New ideas in science” (2), which advocates for diverse avenues of exploration, and Lee Smolin’s book, The Trouble with Physics (3), together encourage me to believe in the general pertinence of the considerations outlined below. There are barriers in immunology to a public consideration of controversial, foundational issues. Niels Bohr said, “How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress” (4). I argue that two immunological questions are foundational. Answers are consequential for the design of strategies of prevention and treatment in diverse areas of medicine. The major frameworks, employed to analyze these questions over the last three decades, are paradoxical in the context of diverse observations and appealing principles, and are an impediment to progress (5). Facing paradoxes brings focus to foundational issues and to “disruptive research.” Remarkably, paradoxes are not regarded as jewels, with the potential of shedding light in diverse directions, when attended to. I suggest how this logjam might be overcome. How research funds are allocated is pivotal, even more critical than access to publishing. The size of the investment is not the problem but how investments are made. Members of conventional grant panels are specialists. I suggest they are central to the logjam that Chu and Evans identify (1). I propose there be two panels, one conventional and an alternative. Most members of the alternative panel would have expertise in neighboring fields. An applicant whose research proposal challenges current frameworks will more readily receive a reasoned hearing from the alternative than the conventional panel, whose members have conscious, and/or unconscious, vested interests. Moreover, paradoxes bearing on foundational issues are relatively easily explained to nonspecialists. Researchers would choose which panel to apply to for funds. It would be interesting to follow the impact of research funded by the two panels by the metrics employed by Chu and Evans. My intuition tells me that more of the research funded by the alternative panel would have greater penetration and sustained and increasing impact.