Science in the Crossfire

On Discovery, Trust, and the Systems That Shape Progress

Science doesn’t just happen. It’s built — a slow, deliberate process that transforms curiosity into discovery and answers into action. But its influence doesn’t stop in the lab or the pages of academic journals. Peer-reviewed publishing — the method science uses to certify its findings— holds profound sway over how societies chart their futures, from public health and defense to private investment and enterprise.

Yet, like any societal regime or institution, this process has its flaws, its limitations, and its power dynamics. To understand how science shapes decision-making — and what’s at stake when it doesn’t — we need to pull back the curtain.

The Assembly Line of Science

Science begins not with certainty but with doubt. A scientist identifies a question, crafts a hypothesis, and runs experiments or collects data to test it. But science isn’t science until it’s tested again — this time, by others.

Once a study is completed, it’s submitted to journals where experts (i.e. peers) scrutinize the work for flaws, inconsistencies, and bias. It’s an imperfect system — critics argue it stifles innovation or elevates cliques — but it remains the most rigorous filter for separating signal from noise. In numbers, there is over 5 million new papers published in 46,000+ journals across the world every year. 

This isn’t just an academic exercise. It’s a social contract

By doing peer-review, scientists agree to hold each other accountable in exchange for the public’s trust. And when trust is upheld, the ripple effects are extraordinary.

Science as a Public Good — or a Private Commodity

Imagine a policymaker trying to draft climate legislation or a CEO deciding where to invest in new technologies. Both turn to science for clarity, grounding their decisions in research they can trust. But here’s the paradox: the very mechanisms that certify scientific research often make it inaccessible.

The largest journals — those that set the gold standard for peer-reviewed research — operate on paywalled systems that lock critical insights behind steep subscription fees. Public institutions and small businesses are frequently priced out, creating a hierarchy of who gets to act on knowledge.

This tension has reshaped the landscape over the past two decades. Open-access models are gaining traction, breaking down barriers but also creating new ones: researchers often face steep fees to publish in these journals. The result? Wealthier institutions dominate the conversation, leaving underfunded voices — and the questions they would ask — on the margins.

The Costs of Slowing Down

When it comes to decision-making, time is always the ultimate currency. The peer-review process takes months — sometimes years. In fast-moving crises, from pandemics to financial shocks, decision-makers can’t afford to wait.

During COVID-19, policymakers leaned heavily on preprints — research published before/without peer review. This democratized knowledge in unprecedented ways but also exposed fault lines. Unvetted studies fueled misinformation and eroded public trust.

Here lies the dilemma: should science prioritize speed over rigor? Or can systems evolve to achieve both?

Science doesn’t live in a vacuum. It’s shaped by the systems that fund it, the cultures that celebrate it, and the markets that monetize it. As artificial intelligence accelerates research and blockchain promises transparency in peer review, the infrastructure of science is transforming.

But these tools won’t solve the deeper issue: trust. Without it, the decisions that depend on science — how we confront climate change, prepare for pandemics, or manage innovation — risk being driven by partisanship and profit, not evidence. The question of trust, therefore, must always be addressed to the global scientific community.

If governments and the private sector really want to leverage science effectively, they need to invest not just in discovery but in the systems that validate and disseminate it. Because when science is sidelined — or worse, when its legitimacy is questioned — societies make decisions in the dark. And in an age of rapid change, the cost of being wrong has never been higher.