Academics are increasingly expected to demonstrate impact by championing causes, policies and technologies. But academia serves society better by remaining a critical and independent source of evidence, argues Martijn Heck.
Last month saw the tragic conclusion of the much-hyped story around Jason Arday. He was a poster-child professor at Cambridge, young and black, in the field of race, inequality and education. He was accused of plagiarism by Nathan Cofnas, a not-so-well-established-yet academic, with the view that humanity can be divided into various races with different levels of intelligence. That accusation was front-page news all over the world. And it led to Arday’s death.
Plagiarism and fraud in academia are pretty common, unfortunately, and we deal with that. Going to the media isn’t the way. Mostly because nobody outside academia actually cares. So, why did this story blow up? Because this wasn’t about academics. This was about activists. Doubt was easily raised about academic quality, as Arday was black himself and an activist for equal rights, the very topic of his research. Likewise, nobody believes that Cofnas was just guarding academic standards, given his public profile. He wouldn’t have gone after a tweed-wearing Tolkien lookalike.
This story lays bare the inconvenient relation between academia and activism. Academics and their research become vulnerable when there’s a seed of doubt. Were the researchers objective when they obtained results confirming their ideals? I still trust the system of peer review and the scientific method, maybe naively. But will the general public have that faith? Or worse: Will researchers maybe bury results that go against their beliefs? Do we think – hypothetically! – a feminist researcher will publish results showing that women are less suitable as boardroom executives? That a ‘woke’ researcher will show that slavery had no impact on current society? Or that Cofnas will publish that black people are smarter than white people? And to broaden it a bit, will a climate activist publish evidence that the earth isn’t actually warming up?
Funding agencies, policy makers and media increasingly expect academics to engage with the public and take positions in the debate. I disagree with that trend. For example, I don’t think that climate scientists should call for reducing emissions. They can explain and prove that emissions lead to global warming. But the choice to act is made by society, not by professors. I think academia weakens its credibility by choosing sides. It needs to stay rational. A neutral point of reference for all sides in the debate. That’s impossible if it’s a side itself.
Technology isn’t really affected by this kind of societal activism. However, it’s extremely important for our economy, which means money is at stake. Billions of euros are being invested in Dutch National Growth Fund projects and in the European Chips Act, to name a few. This means that the engineering sciences have similar dilemmas: Should a professor push his field and inflate the impact to raise budgets? Or should they give a balanced and realistic overview of where the technology is heading?
This question is opportune. I’ve heard the pitches: Optical chips will replace electronic chips, quantum computers will soon break encryption and Europe will have 20 percent of global chip manufacturing. These work to attract attention and get the balls rolling, but they need to be followed up with nuance, not with hype. And that should be the role of academia.
Many don’t like this reality check. They feel it’s a negative attitude, maybe fearing their bubble gets popped. That’s naïve and counterproductive. Academia isn’t working in isolation, and – if executed well – is the canary in the coal mine for future directions of the field. These opportunities will be missed if we close our eyes to this. Optical chips won’t replace electronic chips, but they’re definitely merging into heterogeneous packages for AI processors, as Nvidia has shown. The quantum computer is still far off, but quantum sensing is already a commercial reality. And getting back market share from TSMC might not happen for Europe, but what about building critical strengths in niche technologies, like compound semiconductors?
Academia should play its role in rationally and objectively assessing future technologies and trends. It’s its strength. It shouldn’t be cheerleading hyped narratives. Not be negative, but spot the opportunities and steer accordingly with thought leadership.
