by S. Heeren & T. Everts
An interdisciplinary research team is sounding the alarm because the academic world appears to favour “predictable” and “cautious” research rather than bold ideas.
This is not only a problem for the future of science, but above all affects the new generation of researchers and academic talent.
Would Robert Fitzroy have given our beloved Charles Darwin the chance to sail aboard the HMS Beagle if he had known in advance that Darwin would develop a radical theory?
If we consider how his theory of natural selection was received by the scientific community, and by society as a whole, that seems rather unlikely.
It is certainly not easy to secure funding for bold and risky research, especially not for young academics at the start of their careers.
An international group of scientists is now warning, in an article published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, that taking risks in science appears to be
becoming increasingly difficult in the current academic landscape. They argue that factors such as short funding cycles, peer review, high publication costs,
job (in)security and academic hierarchies mean that preference is given to ‘safe’ and ‘predictable’ research rather than bold ideas that may come to nothing.
In other words, scientists are not becoming any less creative or ambitious; the system simply does not provide the time or space for them to be creative.
Science that relies solely on the scientist’s curiosity is a thing of the past. Nowadays, there is a constant need to weigh up which ideas to apply for funding for.
This is because modern science is increasingly characterised by (very) short funding cycles, evaluations based on productivity (e.g. the number of publications and
citations), and fierce competition amongst scientists. At the same time, major scientific breakthroughs often require intellectual freedom, tolerance for uncertainty,
sufficient time to develop ideas, and the possibility of failure. The tension this creates therefore has a major impact on the type of research that, in most cases,
proves successful, namely ‘safe’ or ‘conformist’ research with little risk in terms of results.
Haubrock and colleagues argue that this dilemma primarily affects the new generation of researchers because they are (still) largely dependent on their supervisors for,
amongst other things, their research funding, publications and even their future careers. In addition, many PhD students and postdoctoral researchers are tasked,
alongside their own research, with other duties to support their supervisors, such as teaching, laboratory work, writing papers, peer review,
organising and attending conferences, and so on. As a result, there is little time or mental bandwidth left to develop and refine compelling research ideas.
Peer review and research funding can increase the pressure even further by prioritising methodological familiarity, predictable results and short-term feasibility
over conceptual innovation. For researchers who depend on their next publication or research grant to secure their position in academia, pursuing ‘safe’ and
‘predictable’ research can therefore become a rational career strategy.
To combat this trend towards scientific conformism, the authors advocate, amongst other things, longer funding periods, greater support for bold and risky
research (even where there is a chance of failure) and more stable career prospects. This problem requires a fundamental systemic change in which greater
attention is once again paid to academic freedom and the time needed to develop robust ideas and research. Otherwise, there is a risk that science will continue
to favour conformism over creativity, which will undermine scientific progress and innovation.
[!Tip] Original publication:
Haubrock, P. J., Kouba, A., Soto, I., Abreo, N. A. S., Vilizzi, L., Błońska, D., Tarkan, A. S., De Santis, V., Sousa, R., Nogueira, A. B.,
Heeren, S., Garrido Nogueira, J., Cano-Barbacil, C., Cremella, B., Strubbe, D., Pereira da Silva, J., Poloni, R., Deschepper, P., Thoré, E. S. J., Misteli, B., Sun, J.,
Panisi, M., Dudgeon, D., Stamatiadou, V., Galib, S. M., Maes, C., Baso, N. C., Beukema, W., Števove, B., Záhorská, E., Kurtul, I., Kaur, D., Huber, A. F.,
Halabowski, D., de Assis Guilherme Padilha, J., Balzani, P., Kaya, C., Bayçelebi, E., Mugnai, M., Ahmed, D. A., Saç, G., Aksu, S., Kaya, B. M., Ciftcioglu, M.,
Jiang, X., Rodríguez-Rey, M., Martín-Forés, I., Gonçalves Leles, S., Pârvulescu, L., Pergl, J., Rossetto, F., Wei, H., Kirichenko, N. I., Briski, E.,
Gallitelli, L., Britton, J. R., & Everts, T. How contemporary academic structures constrain scientific creativity and hold back Early Career Researchers.
Nature Human Behaviour. (2026).