top of page

Research Diversity, Disruptive Science, and Scientific Consensus

A New Idea of Diversity for Scientific Advance

Research Diversity, Disruptive Science, and Scientific Consensus

Diversity has been a widely used word of late, but there has been far less discussion of its intrinsic value. Racial diversity is a political goal for some, and it has been countered by those who consider viewpoint diversity more important. But why is diversity a good thing in the first place?

Research diversity is a new idea, and it refers to a variety of priors, methodological approaches, and objectives in a field of inquiry. It stands in contrast to narrow orthodoxy or scientific consensus. It has little to do with opinions, so it is distinct from viewpoint diversity.

I make four key points about research diversity:

1) Diversity is evidence of a good environment, both in biology and in scientific research, but it is not the framework that creates this good environment.

2) Diversity is needed for growth, development, and resilience in the natural world.

3) A good research environment is understood in this light of growth, development, and resilience.

4) There exist suboptimal policies that may facilitate research, but not the growth of knowledge.

Research diversity thus has intrinsic value because it reflects an environment conducive to resilient scientific advancement.

Diversity is evidence of a good environment, not vice versa. In nature, the point of origin has the greatest diversity. Human genetic diversity is highest in Africa. Many crops, such as tomatoes, maize, and watermelons, have their greatest number of varieties where the species first evolved. Even borscht, the east European beetroot soup, has the greatest variety of traditional varieties in Ukraine, where it originated, according to the Oxford Encyclopedia of food. Why is this the case? The environment was conducive to development.

The same thing applies to scientific research. Some have cast doubt on the idea of a sole inventor, believing that when conditions are ripe for discovery, many people concurrently discover something independent of each other, and only one or a few get the fame. For example, the marginal revolution in economics came about with the work of Leon Walras, Carl Menger, and William Stanley Jevons, all working independently at about the same time. Newton and Leibniz discovered calculus independently and fought over the credit.

The research diversity that is needed consists of many people taking different theoretical and empirical angles to similar, though perhaps somewhat distinct problems. As they learn from each other, and try new ideas, new conclusions develop that can be challenged and then confirmed or refuted. Those who evaluate and judge research should focus on whether there are clearly fatal flaws in the reasoning, and let the conclusion stand if the reasoning is good. A focus on changing the method to suit the trends of the day is a recipe for confirming the orthodoxy of the day. Let's not forget that there was once a consensus around the flat earth and eugenics. New methodological approaches should be welcomed.

Clearly, diversity is evidence of a good environment. What about resilience? Bananas once tasted better, according to people old enough to remember. The Gros Michel banana was the dominant variety, and most plantations grew countless genetically identical trees. Disease wiped them out, and now the plantations grow countless identical trees of the Cavendish variety, at least until disease gets them too. Genetic variation makes for resilience in the face of threats. Likewise, in the realm of scientific research, there is a need for a variety of approaches to counter unforeseen future challenges. Some will work better than others, and it is best if something is available when a problem comes.

The needed research diversity is not just a matter of avoiding a narrow orthodoxy; cross-pollination across disciplines is needed too. Stopping crop disease is a matter of growing multiple varieties, but it is also beneficial to grow completely different plants nearby. To the extent that journals favor a narrow set of methodologies, the accepted body of research will eventually prove unable to meet the challenges of the time. This has been especially noticed in economics and also in other fields. What we really need is courage to pursue genuinely new ideas. Another rigorously identified example of the fact that a demand curve slopes downward is not one of those. Are radically new ideas publishable? From my own experience, not always. When they are, though, they are very meaningful.

Will an environment of research diversity allow for dubious research? Yes, but it won't persist. Trofim Lysenko in the Soviet Union believed in faulty crop science, and his position of power let him force it on others, leading to a famine. Dissent was not tolerated. Genetic mutations happen in nature, and bad science will happen. Both will be corrected. Had the environment tolerated diversity, a new idea like Lysenko's would be heard, but when it failed, people could move on.


© 2024 by Robert Gmeiner

bottom of page