I am a person linked to science. She is complex, I like her and I experience pleasure in her. Solved and solves problems. We understand and appreciate the world better with it. She may seem frantic, but, in her spirit, she reminds us every now and then that we should go slowly with the walk, that the saint is made of clay. When they make it run too much, the bug can catch it, which is part of the business, but there are those who don't know that. As I said, I am a person linked to science and the algorithms that announce new news on my cell phone have already discovered this. And there are weeks when the bug catches up.
Every other day, a new experiment will revolutionize physics, a new theory will make us rethink everything we already know, a decisive step has been taken to unravel a crucial problem, a new material will infinitely expand the horizon of new technological applications. And, almost never, the oracles in these press releases get it right. This new experiment will need to be confirmed by others in the coming months or years before it revolutionizes anything, the new theory competes with others and has several points yet to be demonstrated, the decisive step needs several more before history can classify it with decisively, the extraordinary new material is the result of a botched experiment, if not of a fraud to be disproved, as it often is.
Science is like that, but the news doesn't remember that its progress needs to go slowly, because the saints to be appreciated and, why not, venerated, are made of clay. This type of science dissemination forgets the most important thing: the procession of science is from Minas Gerais. It gives the public the impression that science is a parade of disconcerting discoveries, which enter the avenue faster and faster and in ever-increasing numbers. I, personally, got tired of this whirlwind of news and swiped my finger on my cell phone screen to dislodge the pomp and circumstance of the moment.
As I said, I am a science person and, therefore, I am happy with discoveries, or news, after all this is a central value of science. However, the clay saint requires slow walking, so I try not to be obsessed with them, the news. As there are more and more “of them”, under the claim of being a central value, the novelty “needs to be measured”, and, in the wake of metrics for the number of articles and citations, proposals in this sense are emerging.[I].
On the other hand, Barak Cohen, for example, asks himself: “How should novelty be valued in science?”[ii] Attention: valued, not measured. Without reading your article carefully, I agree with the fear that the author already announces in the summary: “placing too much value on novelty can have counterproductive effects on the rate of progress in science and the organization of the scientific community”. Next, he recommends that the “emphasis on novelty be replaced by an emphasis on predictive power as a characteristic of good science.” Although I agree with this, new, unshowy details also deserve attention, and their observation, description, reproduction and analysis can make good scientists. If all the details must be published to lengthen CVs, that is another five hundred, but they are mixed with the other ballots in the same portfolio of the scientific community organization.
The novelty also seems to suffer from a paradox: everyone claims to be in favor of it, but, when it comes to evaluating projects that pursue them, evidence suggests biases to the contrary. This is a hypothesis that has been raised for some years, although the authors later removed the article from the journal[iii]. He then becomes curious, with the flea behind his ear. There is another recurring discussion, but it is worth remembering. In the article by Jalees Rehman “New in science – real need or disturbing obsession?”, published in The Conversation in 2018, a broad set of interviews with more than 1500 scientists is displayed, 70% of whom stated that they were unable to reproduce results from other scientists at least once. Yes, reproducibility, as well as novelty, is also a pillar of science[iv]. How can we better balance these pillars? Barak Cohen also warns against excessive emphasis on novelty. I won't delve into all the details; The references are there for anyone who wants or can read. One word that emerges in these discussions about novelty versus reproducibility is robustness, as another foundation of science. A very appropriate foundation for a clay saint.
This problem is not, as it might seem, recent. Wladimir Kourganoff wrote the book “The hidden face of the university” in 1969, translated and published by Editora da UNESP in 1990. Kourganoff was a Russian astronomer and professor who emigrated to France. The book is a criticism of the university, whose fundamental problems, according to him, the new airs of May 1968 would not solve. There are conflicts between teaching and the primacy of research and the obsession with publication, among other issues. Regarding novelty, in the chapter “Attachment to the values of research”, the author uses an epigraph, attributed to G. Cesbron: “The reader…he became eager for novelties at any price”, which reminds me of the reader who It feeds on science through the headlines offered by algorithms these days. In a paragraph written 55 years ago, I read:
“It can be added… that even in our days, obsessive advertising instills in the public an insatiable hunger for revolutionary news. By contagion or intellectual snobbery, the thirst for the 'unprecedented' is gradually advancing to all domains. Everything is interesting, or even wonderful, for the simple reason that it is new.”
And it is also worth remembering that the idea of novelty has a long history[v], not always meaning the same thing, a good conversation while walking slowly, because the saint is made of clay.
This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Unicamp.
[I] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0254034
[ii] https://elifesciences.org/articles/28699?
[iii] https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/the-novelty-paradox-bias-for-normal-science-evidence-from-randomized-medical-grant-proposal-evaluations
[iv] https://theconversation.com/novelty-in-science-real-necessity-or-distracting-obsession-84032
