[Learning from the Past to Understand the Future] The 'High Priests of Peer Review' Holding Science Hostage: How the Power Structure of Research Funding Hinders True Scientific Progress

◆ Featured Article This Time ◆

Jamie Shaw "The high priests of science are holding it hostage" (Institute of Art and Ideas, July 8, 2025)

Challenging the "Sanctuary" of the Peer Review System

Furano: The fact that scientists spend 60% of their research time on funding applications is, well, putting the cart before the horse...

Phrona: Truly. Even though they became scientists because they wanted to do research, it's sad that their day ends with just collecting money. But why did it end up like this?

Furano: Fundamentally, there is the idea that "since scientists know science best, they should be given the authority to decide on funding allocation." It looks rational at first glance, doesn't it?

Phrona: Certainly, it seems safest to leave it to the experts. But you're saying that's not actually the case?

Furano: That's right. According to the article, peer reviewers are quite poor at predicting the success or failure of research. Moreover, reviewers often disagree with each other on which research is good or bad.

Phrona: Does that mean the people thought to be "authorities" were actually just fumbling in the dark?

Furano: That is exactly what it means. What's more problematic is that this system solidifies existing power structures. People who aren't from famous universities, women, people of color, and people with disabilities are more likely to be disadvantaged.

Phrona: That's sad. Science should be enriched by diverse perspectives... so there's a phenomenon called the "Matthew effect" in the world of science too, isn't there?

The "Conservative Wall" Hindering Innovation

Furano: What was impressive in the article was the story that mRNA vaccine research failed to secure funding over ten times. Even though it's a technology that saved humanity during the COVID-19 pandemic, looking back now.

Phrona: Ten times? That's a bit abnormal, isn't it? What was considered so problematic about it?

Furano: Perhaps it was because it deviated from the mainstream research methods of the time. Peer reviewers tend to judge based on existing knowledge and methodologies, so completely new approaches are deemed "high risk."

Phrona: But wait, isn't research about exploring the unknown in the first place? If you just keep avoiding risks, it seems like true discoveries won't be born...

Furano: Exactly. The article also points out that when Galileo proposed the heliocentric theory, he received the strongest opposition from those who believed in the mainstream physics of the time.

Phrona: History repeats itself. But why are people afraid of new things?

Furano:It might be human instinct to want to invest in things that seem safe. Especially when the source of funding is tax money, there is the issue of accountability if things fail. But it is an ironic situation where that 'safety' is actually killing innovation.

Feyerabend's Warning

Phrona:The ideas of the philosopher Paul Feyerabend mentioned in the article are interesting. That scientists have no such thing as 'authority over truth'.

Furano:Feyerabend was a particularly radical debater in the philosophy of science. According to him, there is no such thing as a universal 'method' in science. Therefore, there is no reason for scientists to have any special authority.

Phrona:Isn't that a bit shocking? Because there is a strong image that science equals the pursuit of objective truth.

Furano:But when you think about it, looking back at the history of science, major discoveries have been born by breaking down existing methodologies. Quantum mechanics is one example, and the theory of evolution is another.

Phrona:That's true. Since science is also something humans do, it might be something that changes with the times. But if so, shouldn't there be different ways to allocate research funding?

Furano:Exactly. Instead of concentrating power in a small number of peer reviewers, we need to think about a more diverse and equitable system. The article also presents concrete reform proposals.

The Idea of 'Research Funding for All Scientists'

Furano:The first reform proposal is a quite bold idea: 'distribute research funding to all qualified scientists'.

Phrona:Is that like a basic income for scientists? It's an interesting idea, but is it really feasible?

Furano:The author of the article calls it a 'Universal Research Fund'. It certainly sounds unrealistic at first, but when you think about it carefully, there are rational aspects to it.

Phrona:Meaning?

Furano:First, the competition to get a university position is extremely high, and scientists who pass that hurdle are fundamentally excellent. So the risk of 'funding flowing into nonsense research' is lower than you might think.

Phrona:I see. So a certain level of 'screening' has already been done. But what about large-scale research projects?

Furano:That is another interesting part; the proposal is for scientists to pool funds among themselves and proceed in a 'crowdfunding' manner.

Phrona:Does that mean utilizing the 'collective intelligence' of the scientists actually doing the research, rather than relying on the judgment of peer reviewers?

Furano:Yes, it's the idea of the 'wisdom of the crowd' in social psychology. The judgment of many scientists may be more accurate than that of a few peer reviewers.

Leaving Fate to a 'Lottery'

Phrona:I was also surprised by the second reform proposal. Introducing a 'lottery' for the allocation of research funding.

Furano: Actually, it is already being tested in places like the UK, Canada, and New Zealand. Especially as a system targeting 'transformative and innovative research'.

Phrona: But for someone who is doing serious research, doesn't the idea of leaving it to 'luck' feel a bit like being mocked?

Furano: I understand that feeling. But the current peer review system, in the end, isn't correctly evaluating 'merit' either. If that's the case, a method less susceptible to bias and power politics might be better.

Phrona: True. If it's going to be swayed by strange favoritism or personal relationships, a fair lottery might actually be more honorable.

Furano: Though, it's not about making it completely random; it's about choosing from proposals that have cleared basic criteria. A minimum level of quality is guaranteed.

Phrona: I see. But hearing about these two proposals really shows how rigid the current system has become.

The Perspective of Power Redistribution

Furano: The core of the article, I think, isn't just a matter of efficiency, but of 'power redistribution.' It's a proposal to disperse the decision-making power currently concentrated in a small number of peer reviewers more broadly.

Phrona: Does that mean the democratization of the scientific world?

Furano: Exactly. Since science is also a part of society, it cannot escape the problem of power structures. To ensure diversity, it is necessary to intentionally disperse power.

Phrona: But isn't expertise important? There are areas where amateurs shouldn't be speaking up...

Furano: Of course, expertise is important. But the problem is 'who is an expert' and 'should we concentrate power in those experts?' Looking at the history of science, true innovation often comes from the periphery.

Phrona: That's true. If things are decided only by existing groups of experts, ideas that go beyond those boundaries might never emerge.

Furano: That is precisely why we need mechanisms that guarantee diversity at the institutional design stage. That is highly likely to lead to innovation in science as a whole.

Beyond the Illusion of 'Truth'

Phrona: Listening to this, I've started to lose track of what 'scientific truth' even is in the first place.

Furano: That is exactly the point Feyerabend pointed out. The narrative that science is steadily progressing toward 'truth' might itself be a kind of myth.

Phrona: But as people living with the benefits of science and technology, don't we feel some kind of 'progress'?

Furano: Of course, the accumulation of scientific knowledge and the development of technology are facts. The question is whether that is a straight 'path to truth' or a more complex and unpredictable process.

Phrona: In other words, does scientific progress depend on 'chance' much more than we think?

Furano:At the very least, it means it is not as predictable as the current peer review system assumes. That is precisely why it is important to incorporate diversity and randomness into the system.

The Pitfalls of 'Concentrated Investment' in Cancer Research

Phrona:The article mentioned an example of cancer research, and that was shocking. Trillions of yen are being invested, yet progress is so slow.

Furano:It seems that funds were too concentrated in relatively established fields like chemotherapy and radiation therapy. New approaches like immunotherapy were overlooked.

Phrona:But investing in methods with high certainty seems rational...

Furano:That may be true in the short term. But in the long run, trying diverse approaches in parallel might be more likely to lead to a breakthrough.

Phrona:It's like the idea of diversifying a portfolio. It's safer to spread the risk than to put all your assets into one method.

Furano:Exactly. Scientific research is, in a sense, an 'investment in uncertainty,' so there are parts where insights from the financial world can be applied.

Phrona:But to achieve that, it means we need to change the current power structure.

Institutional Reform as an Experiment

Furano:What the author emphasizes at the end of the article is the importance of an 'experimental approach.' You don't know if a new system will work until you actually try it.

Phrona:That's a scientific attitude. Formulate a hypothesis, conduct an experiment, and verify the results.

Furano:Exactly. Instead of clinging to the current system, we should try various possibilities. I think that is the scientific approach.

Phrona:But changing the system seems incredibly difficult. There are vested interests, after all...

Furano:It certainly won't be easy. But now that the problems with the status quo have become clear, I think change is inevitable. After all, some countries have already started new initiatives.

Phrona:Thinking about it that way, we might be at a turning point in the history of science. What we are witnessing might be the beginning of a fundamental change in what science is.

Furano:Indeed. And I think this is not just a problem for science, but also a matter that concerns how society as a whole makes decisions. How do we position the authority of experts, and how do we ensure diversity? These are also fundamental challenges for democracy.

Summary of Points

• Problems with the current scientific funding allocation system

  • Funding allocation that relies on the peer review system hinders innovative research and solidifies existing power structures. Scientists spend 60% of their research time applying for funding, and even groundbreaking research can fail to secure funding more than 10 times.

• The Limitations of the Peer Review System

  • Peer reviewers are not good at predicting the success or failure of research, and their judgments lack consistency. Furthermore, biases against women, people of color, and those from 'lower-tier' institutions exist, which hinders diversity.

• Feyerabend's View of Science

  • There is no universal 'method' in science, nor is there any basis for scientists to hold special authority over truth. Scientific progress is unpredictable, and enforcing existing standards limits creativity.

• Reform Proposal 1 - Universal Research Fund

  • Distribute basic research funding to all eligible scientists, and realize large-scale projects through crowdfunding among scientists themselves. This is an approach that decentralizes power and utilizes the 'wisdom of the crowd'.

• Reform Proposal 2 - Introduction of a Lottery System

  • Randomly determine funding recipients from among research proposals that meet basic criteria. This has already been trialed in countries such as the UK, Canada, and New Zealand, and is expected to have the effect of neutralizing the influence of bias and power politics.

• The Perspective of Power Redistribution

  • The essence of the problem is not efficiency, but the decentralization of decision-making power concentrated in a small number of peer reviewers. It is important to ensure diversity and innovation through the democratization of the scientific community.

Keyword Explanation

[Peer Review]
A system in which scientists evaluate the research proposals and papers of other scientists

[The Matthew Effect]
The phenomenon where 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer'

[Universal Research Fund]
A system that allocates basic research funding to all researchers

[Wisdom of the Crowd]
A social psychology concept that groups make better judgments than individuals

[Paul Feyerabend]
A 20th-century philosopher of science who criticized scientific methodology

[mRNA Vaccine]
An innovative technology used in COVID-19 vaccines

[Immunotherapy]
One of the new approaches in cancer treatment

[Crowdfunding]
A method of raising small amounts of money from a large number of people

This article was first published on the Projeteam, Inc. website.
You can view the latest articles below.