文章基本信息

标题：Reply to Bretscher: Structures for directing mass attention
本地全文：下载
作者：Johan S. G. Chu
期刊名称：Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
印刷版ISSN：0027-8424
电子版ISSN：1091-6490
出版年度：2022
卷号：119
期号：9
DOI：10.1073/pnas.2121563119
语种：English
出版社：The National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
摘要：Bretscher’s letter in PNAS ( 1) argues that structures for diversifying the types of research that are feasible could be sufficient to jolt fields free of ossified canon. In particular, he proposes creating a grant track with panels composed of experts in neighboring fields alongside the existing funding process with in-field panel members. Initiatives such as these foster the development of more novel, less-canonical ideas by adding to the opportunity structure (what research is feasible or convenient) within a field. Providing researchers funding and time to engage in extracanonical investigations may ameliorate one of the problems we listed in our paper in PNAS ( 2): scholars being forced to concentrate on work easily relatable to the canon, foregoing pursuing more original ideas. Funding alone, however, cannot sustain innovative research streams in the absence of concomitant publishing outlets, recognition, and professional rewards. Changing only the production side of the scientific equation is not enough. Our arguments did not assume that the many papers being written each year in large fields were without scholarly merit. (Although, given current incentive structures which overweight the number of papers, a significant number of published papers no doubt lack significant contribution or add only thin “salami slices” to our collective knowledge.) Rather, we argued that, even if all newly published papers in a large field added novel and useful knowledge, the arrival rate of new ideas was too fast to properly evaluate each and bring mass attention to bear on the most promising. It’s just too much! And we have no short-term way to stem the flow, given how numbers of published papers lie enmeshed in the very essence of the modern scientific enterprise, determining scholars’ livelihoods. The problem of disproportionately concentrated mass attention transcends science. As access to means of production and global distribution have become democratized, consumers in almost all fields are faced with more choice than ever before. Chu finds, in a series of studies (e.g., ref. 3), that an influx of new entrants entrenches existing dominants in settings as diverse as mutual fund competition, Hollywood casting, the marketplace of ideas, and K-pop artist success. In science and elsewhere, a surging influx of choices pushes consumption and attention to the already most attended. Our paper resonated with many readers, scientists and nonscientists ( 4). Collectively, we can attempt a variety of approaches to attacking the problems identified in the paper. In our view, only addressing one side of the equation—the supply side—does not solve the problem. Indeed, increasing the amount and variety of supply without changing how scholarship is consumed may exacerbate negative trends by upping the cognitive resources required to make sense of new choices and driving consumers to familiar shortcuts. Robust solutions must alter consumption structures and change how we direct our collective attention.