The Rise of Tribalistic Science: A New Era of Pseudo-Progress in Europe

Europe, once a beacon of scientific innovation and intellectual freedom, is now at a crossroads. The systems that once drove progress-science, politics, and academia-are increasingly dominated by self-serving lobbies, profit-driven research groups, and a culture of mutual back-scratching that prioritizes metrics over meaning. Welcome to the era of Tribalistic Science, where belonging to the right group matters more than groundbreaking ideas.

In academia, the playing field is far from level. Only those who belong to powerful groups-those already in positions of influence-can truly thrive. For everyone else, no matter how inventive, competent, or dedicated, the path to success is riddled with obstacles. If you’re not willing to bend to the will of the “boss,” if you dare to challenge the status quo or pursue ideas outside the mainstream, you risk being cast aside. Year after year, these individuals are abandoned to obscurity, their contributions ignored, their potential wasted.

By the time a decade has passed, they find themselves without the “metrics” needed to secure academic positions-bureaucratic or otherwise. They lack the high-impact publications, the prestigious citations, and the institutional affiliations that the system values above all else. But as scholars like Hicks et al. (2015) and Larivière & Sugimoto (2019) have shown, these metrics are deeply flawed. They reward conformity, favor established elites, and perpetuate a cycle of exclusion.

A recent study published in Nature (Park et al., 2023) confirms what many of us have long suspected: science is becoming less disruptive. Using a metric called the “CD index,” the researchers analyzed millions of papers and patents from 1945 to 2010 and found a significant decline in groundbreaking discoveries. Instead of overturning existing knowledge and creating new fields, most research now focuses on incremental improvements.

The problem is systemic. As Mirowski (2011) and Berman (2012) have documented, academia has become increasingly driven by market forces and profit motives. Universities and research institutions align themselves with corporate and government interests, prioritizing projects that promise financial returns over those that challenge the status quo or serve the public good. This commercialization of science, as Greenberg (2007) and Angell (2004) argue, distorts research priorities and undermines scientific integrity.

Meanwhile, those in power-the gatekeepers of grants, publications, and promotions-either don’t care, aren’t aware, or are too deeply entrenched in the system to challenge it. After all, they’ve ascended to their positions thanks to the very biases and broken rules that sustain the status quo. As Fukuyama (2014) and Mounk (2018) have observed, this kind of institutional decay is not unique to academia; it’s a symptom of a broader decline in democratic systems, where entrenched interests and eroding public trust threaten the foundations of progress.

The consequences are dire. Public trust in science is eroding, as Gauchat (2012) and Oreskes & Conway (2010) have shown. Polarization is deepening, and Europe’s ability to address global challenges-from climate change to inequality-is being undermined. But perhaps the greatest tragedy is the loss of potential: the groundbreaking ideas, the transformative discoveries, and the voices that could have shaped a better future, if only they’d been given a chance.

So, what can we do?

1. Demand Transparency: Hold institutions accountable for their practices, from peer review to funding allocation.
2. Support Independent Thinkers: Celebrate and fund researchers who challenge the status quo, even if they lack the “metrics” the system values.
3. Reform Metrics: Replace flawed metrics like the Impact Factor with measures that prioritize real-world impact and innovation.
4. Raise Awareness: Shine a light on the systemic biases and injustices that perpetuate these problems.

Europe’s decline as a scientific leader is not inevitable, but reversing it will require courage, creativity, and collective action. The question is: Are we willing to confront the systems that are failing us, or will we continue to let them fail future generations?

Institutions and governments now measure the “interestingness” of science using pseudo-indexes that prioritize quantity over quality, collaboration over innovation, and self-referential circles over genuine impact. These metrics include:

1. The number of publications, regardless of the number of authors. For instance, researchers at CERN can publish 100+ papers in a year among hundreds of co-authors-a must for career advancement, but hardly a measure of individual contribution or groundbreaking work.
2. The number of papers on the same subject. Continuously publishing on a single topic can guarantee a spot on the podium-and possibly even a Nobel Prize-though this level of recognition is often entangled in politics and institutional prestige.
3. The way authors in the same field cite each other, exponentially inflating citation counts while disregarding the actual usefulness or impact of the work.

What these metrics fail to measure is the real future impact of new ideas, their potential, or whether an author is striving alone to develop groundbreaking concepts that could contribute to humanity’s welfare-now or in the future.

This is my definition of the new kind of science being practiced worldwide with “success,” even as it erodes public trust in the scientific enterprise.

Reflecting on the past, Martin Gardner once observed in Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science:
“Since the Bomb exploded over Hiroshima, the prestige of science in the United States has mushroomed like an atomic cloud. In schools and colleges, more students than ever before are choosing some branch of science for their careers. Military budgets earmarked for scientific research have never been so fantastically huge. Books and magazines devoted to science are coming off the presses in greater numbers than at any previous time in history. Even in the realm of escape literature, science fiction threatens seriously to replace the detective story.”

Yet, as science has grown in prestige and scale, it has also become increasingly tribalistic, losing sight of its true purpose: to explore, innovate, and improve the human condition.

REFERENCES:

1. On Publication Pressure and Metrics

2. On Citation Practices and Groupthink

3. On the Impact of Institutional and Government Influence

4. On the Erosion of Public Trust in Science

5. Historical Context (Martin Gardner and Beyond)

6. On Alternative Approaches to Science

Originally published at http://soulofmatter.wordpress.com on January 30, 2025.