Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    College Advising
    Serving Higher Ed
    Chronicle Festival 2025
Sign In
The Review

Should Scientists Compromise? First, Define Your Terms

By Joshua S. Weitz March 5, 2017
Should Scientists Compromise?  First, Define Your Terms 1
Lily Padula for The Chronicle

A few weeks after the November presidential election, I participated in a webinar on anticipated changes in federal research funding. Every administration brings with it a new message and new priorities, yet the high faculty turnout for the webinar suggested widespread concern with then-President-elect Donald Trump’s aversion to scientific consensus.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

A few weeks after the November presidential election, I participated in a webinar on anticipated changes in federal research funding. Every administration brings with it a new message and new priorities, yet the high faculty turnout for the webinar suggested widespread concern with then-President-elect Donald Trump’s aversion to scientific consensus.

The webinar presenter was circumspect with respect to predictions. Nonetheless, some trends were ominous. Most telling was the suggestion that research on climate and environmental change was likely to be supported if we remained “agnostic” with respect to causes. This choice of words has stuck with me.

Perhaps that was the point.

Scientists are about to be tested. The test is simple to administer. In fact, it has already begun. If you haven’t taken it, don’t worry, it will only last a few seconds, much shorter than usual administrative requests. Exams will be collected immediately, scores returned anytime in the next four years, and the answers will be held in perpetuity.

Are you ready?

Q: Define the word compromise:

a) Settle a dispute by mutual concession,

b) Accept standards that are lower than is desirable,

c) Bring into disrepute or danger by indiscreet, foolish, or reckless behavior.

Pencils down.

Many of you probably chose option a), because most exams that we give (or take) have a single correct answer. Moreover, it’s the optimistic choice. But in fact, all three definitions are correct. So let’s move from definitions to choices, because understanding how scientists approach compromise will have consequences.

Scientists collect data, develop theories, and integrate these together to understand the natural world. The conclusions we reach are a result of the scientific method. If one of us thinks the Earth is flat and the other thinks it is round, we do not compromise and say that the Earth is shaped like a cylinder. Instead, we try to identify experiments and measurements that could discriminate between alternative hypotheses and let the data direct us both to the right answer.

Compromise does not seem to play an essential role in the practice of science nor in the scientific method. Nonetheless, compromise plays a larger role in deciding how best to support scientists, their work, and the translation of research findings into policies, technologies, and infrastructure to improve the human condition. Moreover, as has been shown repeatedly in efforts to manage the “commons,” by compromising we can all be better off than had each of us decided to go it alone.

Despite potential benefits, mutual concession as a means to improve outcomes may appear less desirable in certain scenarios. Over 40 years ago, John Maynard Smith and George Price reasoned that many potential conflicts in the natural world are resolved by retreat when one animal perceives it is disadvantaged and could be injured. Animals may use and interpret signals as a proxy to avoid dangerous conflicts. This insight from evolutionary game theory is especially relevant to us now.

It is one thing to engage in a good-faith debate over the prioritization of distinct approaches to finding a cure for cancer or to enhancing the efficiency of alternative fuels. It is quite another to be targeted by a “mean tweet” from the president amplified by online threats, to find one’s work added to a congressional list of “wasteful research,” or to see crucial discoveries scrubbed from government web pages and projects cut off from funding entirely. Who wants such a reaction? No one. Now, you see that option a) might not be such a good choice, after all. Instead, there appear to be quite rational reasons for individual scientists and professional organizations to reach for option b).

But option b) comes with a heavy cost. Not only is it unpleasant to compromise one’s standards, there are also consequences. How can we effectively mitigate against the effects of climate change if we are not willing to confront their causes? How can we protect the lives of newborn children vulnerable from otherwise preventable and potentially fatal diseases if we cannot advocate forcefully for vaccinations at clinically tested schedules? How can we forestall the end of the antibiotic era if we cannot study the basis by which bacteria and viruses evolve?

ADVERTISEMENT

There is substantial evidence that the present administration would prefer that scientists choose option b). In the weeks after the inauguration, the Trump administration directed the removal of information, particularly related to climate change, from government websites and social-media accounts and enacted a gag order on governmental agencies. These decisions undermine efforts to understand and communicate how climate change affects food security, access to water, and the spread of disease. The recent pre-emptive cancellation of an international Climate and Health Summit to be held at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention raises similar questions. What scientific paradigms have changed that would diminish the need for this kind of interface conference?

Scientists are respected members of society. The scientists I know and have worked with are committed to understand the complex world around us — from the hyperfast vibrations of molecules to the collective movement of cells to the inescapable march of cosmological time. They do so with passion and integrity. Yet if we choose to define compromise through weakening and lowering standards then we will have erased not only option a), but also option b), and, with time, arrived to where some would want us: option c), bringing ourselves, our profession, indeed our calling, into disrepute.

By their differences, the alternative definitions represent the essential choice facing scientists, professional organizations, and institutions. By our choices, we will decide what kind of science we intend to practice.

Despite the challenges ahead, I remain optimistic that scientists can reward the faith entrusted in us by our fellow citizens. We can do so by disregarding advice to remain “agnostic.” We should not compromise if that means weakening standards or endangering our communities. Accepting such forms of compromise — whether actively or passively — is antithetical to our commonly held values.

ADVERTISEMENT

Instead, we should insist that scientific research remain the cornerstone of efforts to cure disease, preserve our environment, and strengthen our economy and infrastructure. In doing so, scientists will continue to provide economic and social benefits through our research, education, and outreach, and remain an example of how to serve with principles, integrity, and purpose.

To commit to this path requires courage. It also requires concrete action, whether by convening canceled scientific meetings at nongovernmental venues (like the Climate and Health Summit), participating in a March for Science, or running for political office. More such actions will be needed by scientists and supporters alike in the months and years to come. Whatever their form, these actions should have a purpose: to ensure that science- and fact-based reasoning remains essential, not just to scientists, but to all.

Joshua S. Weitz is a professor in the School of Biological Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The views expressed here represent those of the author.

A version of this article appeared in the March 10, 2017, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

Sensing New Threats, Scientists Entertain Political Ambitions
Feeling Under Siege by Trump, Scientists Plot Their Response
Freeze on Federal Activities Gives Scientists a Chill

More News

Joan Wong for The Chronicle
Productivity Measures
A 4/4 Teaching Load Becomes Law at Most of Wisconsin’s Public Universities
Illustration showing a letter from the South Carolina Secretary of State over a photo of the Bob Jones University campus.
Missing Files
Apparent Paperwork Error Threatens Bob Jones U.'s Legal Standing in South Carolina
Pro-Palestinian student protesters demonstrate outside Barnard College in New York on February 27, 2025, the morning after pro-Palestinian student protesters stormed a Barnard College building to protest the expulsion last month of two students who interrupted a university class on Israel. (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP) (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP via Getty Images)
Campus Activism
A College Vows to Stop Engaging With Some Student Activists to Settle a Lawsuit Brought by Jewish Students
LeeNIHGhosting-0709
Stuck in limbo
The Scientists Who Got Ghosted by the NIH

From The Review

Vector illustration of a suited man with a pair of scissors for a tie and an American flag button on his lapel.
The Review | Opinion
A Damaging Endowment Tax Crosses the Finish Line
By Phillip Levine
University of Virginia President Jim Ryan keeps his emotions in check during a news conference, Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Charlottesville. Va. Authorities say three people have been killed and two others were wounded in a shooting at the University of Virginia and a student is in custody. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
The Review | Opinion
Jim Ryan’s Resignation Is a Warning
By Robert Zaretsky
Photo-based illustration depicting a close-up image of a mouth of a young woman with the letter A over the lips and grades in the background
The Review | Opinion
When Students Want You to Change Their Grades
By James K. Beggan

Upcoming Events

07-31-Turbulent-Workday_assets v2_Plain.png
Keeping Your Institution Moving Forward in Turbulent Times
Ascendium_Housing_Plain.png
What It Really Takes to Serve Students’ Basic Needs: Housing
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin