Universities reward speed, output, and compliance. Careers depend on fitting institutional priorities: strategic projects, topics, strategic alliances. Saying “yes” advances you. Asking “why” slows you down. When survival depends on alignment, curiosity quietly becomes a risk factor. #philsci

Today, researchers often follow software tutorials on statistics programs step by step. Pretty tables and graphs appear, everyone is happy, yet few understand what the program actually computes. 🧪 Science risks becoming formatting curiosity rather than genuine exploration. #SciComm #MetaSci

When science starts drifting into performance, producing results, signaling productivity... What’s missing is the messy, uncertain curiosity and inquiry that once drove the whole. Without space for open-ended questions, we risk turning research into a polished simulation of discovery. #philsci

We often assume that rigor comes from following protocols, yet some researchers 🧪 apply statistical procedures or analytic pipelines without understanding their foundations. So Software replaces reflection. When methods become rituals, results look polished but lack depth #philsci #SciComm #metasci

Scientific progress slows when researchers chase trends instead of questions. Entire disciplines shift toward fashionable topics because they promise visibility, grants, and easier publication. When methods, theories, or topics become fads, science 🧪 becomes predictable—and less meaningful. #SciComm

Science gains its meaning from the world it serves. Yet many research agendas drift away from real societal questions, focusing instead on what can be measured, funded, or published. When research 🧪 loses contact with lived reality, it risks losing its purpose and trust of society. #philsci #SciComm

The replication crisis wasn’t an accident or an isolated failure. It was the visible symptom of a system that rewards novelty over reliability and significance over approaching truth. Replication exposes the cracks, but the causes lie deeper—in the structure of scientific 🧪 practice itself. #SciComm

Early-career researchers quickly learn that success depends less on insight and more on strategy. They must publish often, stay within accepted boundaries, and avoid intellectual risks. Curiosity becomes a luxury. When careers depend on predictable output, science 🧪 shifts to performance... #philsci

Peer review is supposed to safeguard quality, but it is fallible. Reviewers may miss errors, reject innovative ideas, or push their own biases. Reviews are often rushed or influenced by competition. Does the peer review system protect 🧪 science, or does it reinforce conformity and slow progress?

#OpenScience initiatives promote data sharing, yet many datasets remain inaccessible. Without raw data, #replication, meta-analysis, and critique are hindered. Transparency is limited, and findings cannot be fully verified. What does it mean for science 🧪 if evidence remains partly hidden? #metasci

Deep expertise is valuable, but excessive specialization isolates researchers from broader contexts. Interdisciplinary dialogue becomes rare, and connections between 🧪 fields weaken. Knowledge grows in silos, while integrated understanding suffers. Are we building knowledge or just isolated facts?

Academic communities can foster groupthink: a shared mindset where dissenting opinions are discouraged. Conformity emerges not always through coercion, but subtle cultural norms. Original ideas struggle to gain recognition, and consensus can harden prematurely.🧪 #GroupthinkinScience #philsci #SciWri

Reproducibility is foundational but often compromised. Studies may use ambiguous protocols, untested tools, or selective reporting. If methods are opaque or poorly documented, does science genuinely self-correct, or does it merely create an illusion of rigor? 🧪 #SciWri #metasci #ScienceIntegrity

Funding often dictates research agendas. Projects aligned with donors, foundations, or government priorities get resources, while unconventional or risky questions go unsupported. Are discoveries truly objective if the path of inquiry is pre-determined by where the money flows? 🧪 #philsci #SciWri

Press releases and high-impact journals encourage overselling findings. Headlines exaggerate certainty, causal claims are stretched, and limitations are downplayed. Overselling can mislead science and the public. How can science maintain credibility when hype sometimes outweighs evidence? 🧪 #SciWri

Academia is dominated by the “publish or perish” culture. This pressure can distort choices: pursuing trendy topics instead of important questions, rushing analyses, or fragmenting findings into multiple papers. How can science progress if career survival depends on output metrics?🧪 #philsci #SciWri

Replication is essential but undervalued. Funding rarely supports it, journals often reject it, and careers don’t reward it. What does it say about science if verifying discoveries is less important than announcing new ones? #metasci

Research trends shift rapidly, and scientists often follow them to stay relevant. Novelty is rewarded, while incremental or unconventional work struggles for attention. Trend-chasing can create bubbles of interest and neglect deeper, unresolved questions. #philsci #SciWri

Researchers must simplify their work for public outreach, but simplification often becomes distortion. Funding agencies want “clear narratives,” journalists want angles, and audiences want certainty. Science gets packaged into digestible truths that don't reflect the underlying complexity. #SciWri

Hyper-specialization creates depth, but also isolation: researchers lose sight of bigger questions because they’re trapped in narrow domains. When expertise becomes too fragmented, interdisciplinary insight becomes impossible. Are we gaining precision but losing perspective? #SciWri #PhilSci

A device looks impressive, but we forget they simplify reality. Eye-tracking shows where people look, but not what they think. AI can summarize medical symptoms, but it cannot read uncertainty or context. The danger is not “bad technology” but blind trust in its outputs. #SciWri #metasci

In many fields, everything must become “data.” Complex experiences, behaviors, and social realities are compressed into numbers for the sake of analysis. But measurement changes what is measured: subtlety disappears, nuance collapses, and insight gets lost in quantification. #datafication

Citation counts and h-indices look like progress, but they measure visibility, not truth. The system rewards noise, not depth. If we stopped counting and started thinking, what kind of science would emerge?

When research becomes trend-driven, knowledge stops expanding—it starts orbiting fashion. Each “hot topic” burns bright and fades. True progress doesn’t trend; it accumulates. How do we protect inquiry from popularity?

“Publish or perish” sounds like ambition, but it’s fear disguised as productivity. When every idea must yield a paper, the quiet questions—the slow ones—die first. What if value in science was measured by insight, not output?

Socrates questioned certainty to reach truth. Today, we defend certainty to reach funding. Somewhere along the way, doubt became unprofessional. What would modern science look like if it rediscovered the art of asking?

When researchers agree too quickly, science risks groupthink: consensus replaces curiosity, and dissent is silenced. Papers repeat each other; funding favors safe topics. True progress demands voices that challenge, not just echo. Is research rewarding conformity over insight?

Have we mistaken consistency for reliability—and convenience for rigor? #ResearchQuality

Has science 🧪confused peer review with truth—or just with approval? #groupthink

If funding agencies shape questions, are scientists truly independent thinkers—or subcontractors fulfilling someone else’s needs? #ScientificCuriosity

Is our world driven by technology—and is #technology itself neutral? Is #AI really disruptive? A new book by @lodelauwaert.bsky.social & Bartek Chomanski examines technologies from hammers & drills to autonomous cars & ChatGPT 🤖👇 link.springer.com/book/10.1007... #philsky #philtech #HPS

To researchers: How often do you publish because you have something to say—and how often because you have to? #publishorperish

Here is a summary of our contribution to www.routledge.com/Neurocogniti... by @marielgoddu.bsky.social #cogsky #philsci #CognitiveNeuroscience 🧠🧪

This week: trend-following and funding in science. Main takeaway: popularity and money often drive research agendas, but awareness can help scientists prioritize relevance. Thoughts? #ScienceReflection

Thread: How funding shapes scientific inquiry. 1/5 Many researchers align projects with funders' questions.

Chasing trends can create a bandwagon effect: many studies, similar methods, limited innovation. The system rewards popularity over originality. Opposite example: Jane and her ape research ❤️

In science, trends often dominate: researchers chase popular topics, sometimes at the cost of deeper, more relevant questions. Funding priorities play a role too. How does this shape what we actually study?

Can Big Data really make science better? Or are we just measuring how much data we can hoard?

Big Data promises clarity through sheer volume. Reality check: it often just dazzles, distracts, and drives researchers in circles. #BigDataFetish

My essay: Big Data shines like a huge SUV – impressive at first glance, hard to steer, and often going nowhere fast. Flashy, oversized, and mostly for show. shorturl.at/y968N

While many focus on trending topics in AI or resilience, we sometimes lose sight of the fundamental questions science started with – what does curiosity really demand?

Question to scientists & readers: Have you ever felt pressured to follow a trend or funding priority over your own curiosity? How does this affect the quality of research? #ScientificDiscussion #ResearchEthics

How funding & trends steer research 📜:

The author also mentions the idea that students who are pushed out just can't "make it". I'm reminded of Isabella Stengers' "Another Science Is Possible: A Manifesto for Slow Science". (3/4) #PhilSci #SlowScience

AI, resilience, diversity… Not all topics ignite passion. Many are 'in' because they promise visibility and funding. Following trends can flatten research, limiting originality. #ScienceTrendChasing

For Socrates, a bad answer was better than no question. In academia today, sometimes we reverse it: no questions, only polished answers.

Too much science today is shaped by funding calls and trending buzzwords. Socrates would ask: are we approaching truth, or just following the money?

Friendliness isn't always a sign of trustworthiness. Warmth is easy to fake. The foundations of trust are reliability and integrity. What counts isn't courtesy in the moment—it's keeping commitments over time. The best way to inspire confidence is to consistently walk our talk.

Socrates never claimed to have answers — only questions. What if research today returned to that spirit: less chasing of outcomes, more courage to sit with uncertainty?