Hi, I’m Yves. Speaking of the rat race, we suddenly have a lot of work to do and we need to get out of it. But I hope this post about the dire state of academic research will inspire you. In it, I explain the unfair incentives and give examples of suboptimal outcomes. These flaws remind me of our weapons procurement practices, where spectacular results are valued over practical, low-cost research.
Written by Véronique Carignan, an environmental chemist and former assistant professor of chemical oceanography. Originally published in Undark
In 2022, A few years into my tenured position as an assistant professor of chemical oceanography, I watched my department focus on a multi-million dollar robotics program. The goal was to attract attention and impress funding agencies and others with our plans for underwater exploration with autonomous vehicles. The program involved designing and building a 20-foot-long test tank housed in a new 27,000-square-foot building that housed eight labs.
I wasn’t particularly surprised. Ever since faculty orientation three years ago, I had been plagued by the university administration’s slogan, “Diversify your funding sources!” As a junior faculty member, IPublish or Perish.” In a combat zone, survival and tenure are usually Secure You need to win at least one major grant in the first four years. I frantically wrote grant applications to every government agency and charity that had money to donate, submitting eight applications in the first two years alone.
The organizational obsession with funding was not only draining, but also felt misguided. My department was ignoring less flashy (but perhaps more meaningful) projects. For example, I tried for months to garner enthusiasm for a low-budget initiative to connect local high school students with our marine science program, to no avail. I pitched a project to invite local school administrators to connect with faculty for synergistic educational opportunities, but was completely ignored by my colleagues.
I was tired of sacrificing my passion for engaging the community in climate science to satisfy the whims of funding agencies. I was also tired of chasing grants instead of spending quality time on research and connecting with the community. The final push came after another faculty meeting about distinguishing our department to secure funding for ambitious climate science goals. Gazing out at the site of our future robotics lab, I drafted my resignation letter.
Positive environmental impact is what drew me and most of my colleagues in the field to academia. After all, academic scientific institutions are places where idealistic scientists like me come together to make a difference. If getting rich is your goal, there are easier and more options. More profitable There are many career paths to choose from, but no matter how idealistic academics may be, there is no escaping the fact that their institutions are increasingly money-driven.
Academic researchers become experts in small but fundamental elements of the natural world, in the hope of one day coming closer to understanding humanity’s place in the universe. The further down the academic path you go, the more complex the science becomes, and in turn, the harder it is to make your work accessible to the general public. This reality prevents many important projects from receiving funding, because to receive meaningful funding, you need the public to understand your research in the context of current issues. This has led me to wonder if, in order to get funding, many researchers are overstating the relevance of their projects to climate change and the climate crisis.
So far this year, the National Science Foundation has funded more than 500 projects with “climate change” in the description, including how salamander color responds to climate change, microplastics in Lake Ontario, and reducing uncertainty in the tree-ring record. The problem is that while these projects are relevant to climate change (tree-ring data, for example, allows researchers to reconstruct past climate conditions), they do little to address the immediate need for climate change mitigation. That’s like saying you’re monitoring soil moisture in a forest 1,000 miles away from a raging wildfire and working to put it out.
I am not alone. Discrepancy The gap between funding goals for climate science and the urgency of climate action. People leaving academia, or those still struggling in academia, call this dangerous opposition “Climate Delay“: a discourse that slows the pace of decision-making and effectively stalls climate action. My undergraduate robotics program addressed climate change slowing using technological optimism. It focused on present and future efforts. technology It’s about unlocking the potential to address climate change rather than finding concrete, actionable solutions within local communities.
Outside of academia, funding is being used in ways that conceal inaction and promote climate change slowdown. For example, by 2024, the United States is estimated to have $50 billion The Biden administration needs to allocate funds to respond to weather and climate disasters. $4.5 billion Funding for climate research often makes climate damage worse. Computational capabilities Data storage. Cloud Computing It has a larger carbon footprint than the aviation industry and a bigger impact on the environment. Increased climate finance The company has invested $500 million to launch a massive cloud computing network.
This misdirection is no secret. In 2018, the Government Accountability Office reported: 94 percent of the government’s climate change funding goes to programs that are “related to, but not specific to, climate change,” with the majority of the funding going to technology development such as hydrogen fusion and nuclear research programs.
The same trend is being seen in the private sector, especially in climate-driven technologies, which are often inspired by academic climate science. From 2021 to 2023, more than 3,000 deals generated more than $10 billion in profits. $150 billion Huge amounts of venture capital and private equity are being pumped into climate technology, but this massive investment has yet to pay off.
For example, there are many startup initiatives claiming the following benefits: Carbon capture and storageCarbon capture and storage (CCS), or carbon capture and storage, is a concept first proposed by academic researchers in the 1970s to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide in the ocean. Today, startups are putting CCS into practice by: Various methods These include farming kelp, cultivating microalgae, injecting carbon dioxide into oil wells to speed up oil production, converting atmospheric carbon dioxide gas into solid carbonates, etc. All of these methods are very costly and have no chance of efficiently capturing a large portion of emitted carbon dioxide.
CCS is an academic scientific initiative that Misappropriation This would create a massive underfunding of climate change and a huge diversion from climate change. Take direct air capture, the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, for example. This would require a system the size of a three-story, three-mile-long building. capture The carbon dioxide emissions are about 1 million tons per year, just 0.02% of the annual U.S. emissions. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, the government $3.5 billion This inefficient technology is set to come into the spotlight in 2023, with a number of tech startups jumping on the bandwagon. Air Hive, repair, Carbon Captureand Sastaera This is just a small part.
So how do we stop this runaway train heading outwards from our ivory towers?
One way to stop pouring money into flashy entertainment is to rethink what counts as valuable when it comes to solving the climate crisis. 95 percent 100% of government and private sector funding goes to basic science, but social science-based initiatives, e.g. Carbon Taxeach country is “Climate Club,” and Grassroots Activities — is equally important for mitigation. Solutions to climate change depend on global societal dynamics. So while basic science is essential to understand the root causes of climate change, we also need to spend money to change attitudes, norms, incentives, and politics.
Academic researchers have a responsibility to help the public understand and address the climate crisis. Using climate science as a tool to fund projects that are indirectly related to solving climate change not only takes away funding from finding solutions, but also creates a tendency for other sectors, such as Congress, industry, and technology development, to perpetuate climate delay.
