Science à la Carte Each time we met, the discussions were marked with out-of-the-
box exchanges and questions. The possibilities for nontraditional
collaborative research seemed within reach. Yet, in the end, as a group,
we were unable to turn the corner from talk to concrete actions. With
each promising discussion, the same question always surfaced: “Where
will the money for research come from?” Behind the question were
faculty members who reported to different colleges and departments.
Each administrative unit had its own incentives, though all shared one
common performance imperative—find more external funding.
The most expedient way to find external money was working the
existing networks of narrow expertise. Establishing the Global Food
Platform would take time to raise awareness, build new networks and
connections, and show proof of concept. Barring a sizable donation
from a wealthy benefactor, we were unable to overcome the univer-
sity’s funding and incentive structure. Reluctantly, we eventually pulled
the plug.
Perhaps in an earlier era and on a different platform for science,
building a diverse interdisciplinary research approach might have
worked. But as the platform for science changed, so also did the pres-
sure to deliver immediate rewards that satisfied each discipline and its
administrator.
As Scott later said to me, “It certainly seems that everyone sees the
need to organize differently, but only if their discipline is at the center.”
Having advanced through the ranks and served as department chairman,
he knew the problems inherent in the current reward system. “Faculty
are passionate, in some cases fanatical, about today’s challenges,” he said,
“yet they understand fully that ‘publish or perish’ is not just some pithy
warning used to scare new professors.”
It’s no great surprise that research results that benefit the funder are
common. Even if the studies appear in peer-reviewed journals, there
are no guarantees that the researchers were not guided (whether explic-
itly or more subtly) in the study design, or sent their findings to donors
before submitting them for publication. At times, as pointed out by
Marion Nestle, the science has nothing to do with advancing knowl-
edge, but serves to push certain marketing messages or mislead regula-
tory scientists.