The Changing World Order (In Science Research)

The central thought of this article is how the world is changing globally. And specifically, I ponder how these changes could relate to our field of science research.

Two years ago, I moved from Singapore to the United States of America to pursue my PhD education. It’s expected that I will be there for at least five years.

This journey - moving countries for a long time - broadens our global perspective. We begin to notice differences in

• culture

• history

• beliefs

There are many others like work ethic, courtesy conventions, etc. but I will save these topics for future newsletters.

While thinking about global differences and trends, I came across the book “The Changing World Order” by Ray Dalio. In this article, I’d like to select a few key ideas from the book and share my thoughts on how each point draws parallels to science research.

History isn’t linear — it’s cyclical

Old civilizations held the notion of time moving in cycles. They believed that society alternates between Dark and Golden ages, often associated with the rule of supernatural beings. Ray draws parallels of this to modern society, where people alternate between poor and rich cycles. Yet, there is an overall improvement through evolution because of how humans can adapt and learn.

I see this situation playing out in the verification of old theories using modern precision engineering. A plethora of eminent scientists proposed nanoscale phenomena between the 1800-1900s, yet they did not have the scientific and computational instruments to prove them.

We possess many technologies today that make it much easier to design or envision scientific concepts to explain our natural world. 3D drawings, molecular simulations, the many ideas floating on the internet. However, the scientists centuries ago did not have this luxury. In that limited scenario, how were they able to be so imaginative, postulating theories too avant-garde to be tested experimentally?

I’m truly curious about their daily thoughts.

The big cycle is driven by economics

Ray Dalio argues that the big cycle is driven by economics. Empires get their power from the dynamism of their economy (which in turn helps them build an army). The economy itself is driven (or slowed down) by debt and culture (people’s behavior). I don’t think we need power right now, it was more relevant in the warring periods. Instead, I think the right word in today’s context is influence.

Realistically, research theme cycles are determined by funding agencies. But, most people under-appreciate the role of the public. The public are the demand initiators, their voices represent and filter issues that are most relevant to our population. The way they discuss, argue, and complain online garners the attention of governments. Relating to economics, public opinion is the demand, while scientific output is the supply. In turn, governments and political leaders set a budget for their national science funding agencies.

And so I believe that scientists need to be more vocal and increase engagement with the public by reframing portions of their work for the layman. Science already suffers a bad reputation with students growing up with bad experiences in science/math class. As researchers publishing papers, we should avoid adding fuel to the fire. Or at least simplify vocabulary and explain uncommon concepts. On publication, crafting a shorter version for promotion that any teenager can understand would be ideal (in my opinion the teenage years are the most formative in deciding a career path).

That’s not to say that scientists are poor at outreach. Indeed, there are a growing number creating Twitter and LinkedIn accounts to share their latest research. I think this is a great move and would encourage more to do the same.

Civilizations last up to 300 years

Ray Dalio analyzed the rise and fall of empires in the past 500 years and found common themes of rising to peaks and falling thereafter to the next ascending empire around 300 years.

I think this relates really well to scientific output of different countries. Less than a century ago, we had prolific scientific output, m

any in the complex physics and mathematics space from the USSR. However, the political downfall and fragmentation of governance in east Europe destroyed science research in the area. As governments struggled with their newly drawn boundaries, limited budgets were available for science research. Several famous scientists in the area left for the West between the fall of USSR until the end of WWII.

Today, the world is relatively peaceful. We have wars but not ‘world wars’, as a result many centers of scientific excellence have been blooming. It is undisputed that the United States and Europe have emerged as global leaders in science research. However, the lead may be short-lived if emphasis on science is downplayed in favor of other social issues by the prevailing governments.

Sometimes, it is difficult to see the true benefit of science from a leadership perspective. Half of science is fundamental, it seeks to understand the basic principles that appear in our natural world. How these theories can grow the economy is anyone’s guess. For that reason, I like reading the last section or conclusion paragraphs in research papers. These usually discuss the implications of that research work, how it relates to the past and future, as well as to real world application possibilities (economic impact).

Fall of the American and Rise of the Chinese World Order

In this chapter, Ray Dalio discusses the rise and fall of empires and how the current world order is changing. He argues that the American world order is ending and the Chinese world order is beginning. When I read this, I had an unexpected shower thought. It’s really disconnected but hear me out. Not about political or economic conflict between superpowers, but rather the fall of traditional closed source papers versus the rise of open source.

Traditionally, the publication industry has been closed source. Research papers cost anywhere between $20-$40 per article, and many academic institutions partner with publishers on million-dollar contracts. Setting aside the economic viability of a publication business, this status quo results in limited reach for the research work. Most people will not pay to read research articles.

What then is the purpose of science research? And should the industry be for profit or non profit? Personally, I think it’s to explore and inform the world. We investigate natural phenomena, perform experiments, draw conclusions about the inner workings and write up a paper to share our findings. It is work for the public, paid for by the public (through taxes and government science research budget). Taxpayer money funds the research, yet publishers are reaping the profits (not the public readers!).

So I’d like to encourage more scientists to publish open source. Let’s get our work in front of the masses. Inform the public about our natural world and inspire them to be curious, and motivate them to contribute to scientific development as well. We can’t do that if our papers are being gatekept behind a costly paywall (in the eyes of the general public reader).

To conclude, the world is constantly changing and its effects seep into our realm of science research too. In these uncertain times, I believe we need to be prepared to fight for what we believe in (be it more awareness, more funding, more access). And I hope your field receives the attention it deserves, and for you to be adequately funded to advance your field of science research.