Quality vs. quantity in science: a view from the North and the South

I recently came across a letter sent to Trends in Ecology and Evolution by a prominent scientist (Fisher 2012). It is yet another voice criticising the focus on quantity over quality of modern science. All around the world, publications, labs, scientists and even study systems are being graded and ranked.

In the same issue, there is a response by a group of brazilian scientists (Loyola et al. 2012) which points out that it would be dangerous to apply the same policies in countries with less developed scientific structures. As a scientist coming from Mexico, a country that is just behind Brazil in scientific development, I understand this point of view. The argument between quality or quantity of publications is futile if the problem of science in developing countries is that there are few or no publications at all.  But the later problem is related to the first and as everything in life, it is more complicated than it seems.

When I started as a hopeful and naive graduate student in Mexico, I just wanted to work on what I found interesting. I gave little though on the relevance, appeal to wider audience or sex-appeal of the topic. Most of the people around me were like me, so I did not think I had to.  The problem came when I tried to publish. Because, yes, I had to publish my PhD research in order get my degree. There was no way around it. To make the story short, it was a nightmare. It took me over a year from the first submission to finally get the paper accepted. In the mean time, I had to write several letters to editors trying to convince them that I wasn’t making things up. You see, I made the big mistake in science these days of studying a non-model organism, and to propose something that as everyone knows only happens North of the border (as if biology knew of such things). I had to first, convince people that there are pines in Mexico; second, that they are very diverse (50% of all species); and third, that the Pleistocene climate changes had an impact in vegetation outside of the glaciated regions. All of those things seem pretty obvious to everyone and, given that I had abundant references to back my statements, I thought that maybe the referees would focus on the actual research and not in my introduction. That experience put me off writing papers on the same subject for a while, and I think I am not the only one that felt like that.

The thing is, that as science is a global “industry”, it is difficult to compete in unequal circumstances. It is demoralising. So, what Loyola et al. point out it is fine, if we lived in a world without prejudice, and the amount of publications a research group has would only depend on the willingness of doing good research and writing and submitting the papers. The problem is that what Fisher points out also affects us down South.  Let me elaborate.

The need to publish more and fast, has led to an overabundance of publications of a few trendy subjects. It also makes people, especially grad students and postdocs to do projects that are as safe as possible, something they can do in a couple of years. Those projects could be the scientific equivalency of making a cake from the box.  This, in my opinion causes many reviewers to see research on systems that they never heard of, to be untrustworthy. This situation is hard to avoid, since biodiversity is the highest in the tropics, in the very same countries that are struggling to have their own space in the scientific world. At the same time, journals do not want to publish papers on odd, incredibly interesting, but widely unknown tropical species (Fig. 1), because most of their subscribers work with Arabidopsis. In two words: less citations.

Fig. 1- Lacandonia schismatica, an odd, interesting
and widely unknown tropical species

So, to rescue what Fisher said, there is no room now for creativity and wisdom. And without creativity, science will get stuck very soon. So I think it is time for us scientists to do something about it. Those in developed countries can make a big change by changing their ranking systems, and “tropicals” like me have to keep studying those odd, unknown and incredibly interesting species that happen to be in abundance in our countries. As biologists we cannot expect to have a better understanding of life if we keep ignoring most of biodiversity, just because it is not trendy. It is also the duty  to break the trend of scientific colonialism, where the only tropical species being studied are those studied by research groups from developed countries. Science, overall, will profit of an increased biodiversity of scientists out there.