Replace the ivory tower with the fire tower

The purpose of a fire tower – wildfire monitoring and warning – derives from its tall, open design. As a metaphor for science, the fire tower would mark an improvement over the ivory tower. Inside its impenetrable walls, the opaque ivory tower hides its purpose. Conversely, with its scaffolding, staircases, communications tech, and observation deck, a fire tower neither conceals arcana nor serves as a fortress. The metaphor of the fire tower could help the scientific community earn once again its privileged place in society. Paraphrasing the early 20th-century US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: if the broad light of day shines upon our actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects (https://tinyurl.com/4frb989t). Transparency can build public trust in science.

The privilege once enjoyed by science seems precious and uncertain today. That uncertainty has its roots in partisan politics and scientists deserve part of the blame, even if their work is nonpartisan. The erosion of public trust in science is due in part to several shortcomings of the ivory tower: scientists have not practiced a penetrating, disinfecting transparency but instead have claimed value-neutrality wrapped in objectivity; the reproducibility crisis in science has undermined peer review's perceived stamp of approval; and the language within scientific papers is often shrouded in mystery by jargon, which adds to opacity. Consequently, our most public works may lead readers to suspect those in ivory towers of ulterior motives.

Here I frame scientific journals as a privileged subset of the Free Press as understood by the “freedom of the press” rights enshrined in so many national constitutions worldwide. Are journals yet another voice in the babel of the Free Press or do they deserve a special position therein? In a healthy democracy, babel and partisan press are not problems unless there is a monopoly of press ownership that imposes one partisan view, paraphrasing E.B. White's essays “On Democracy”. In short, the more voices, the better – and let the reader sort out which are more persuasive. If we seek that privileged position of greater credibility in the babel of the Free Press, then expect continuous challenge and zero deference. Indeed, we will deserve widespread skepticism if we do not undergo comprehensive efforts to embrace transparency. If instead we rely on being a more persuasive voice in the general cacophony, then we should interrogate the basis for our vaunted persuasiveness.

Consider the attributes that make scientists persuasive or credible. Scientists do not derive the privilege of credibility through expert qualifications and years of devotion. Bias can hide from view even within the most credentialed and most experienced. Rather, scientists derive their credibility through transparent methods and the value their findings bring to others.

Explaining our methods to the public is essential, and partnerships with experts in science communications should help. Greater transparency can also be advanced by embracing open science interventions for data sharing and reforms to peer review, including more thorough disclosures of financial and non-financial competing interests. Too many journals still ask prospective authors to self-report these. Self-policing is respectable but should be community-based, especially when the potential payoffs for cheating may be notoriously hard to detect. Such disclosures should not be subject only to internal evaluation within peer review. Rather, every author and reviewer could have comprehensive, publicly available, and up-to-date profiles, detailing their funding sources, affiliations, memberships, and so forth, with a unique identifier like an ORCID ID, which would be published with their articles. A first step would be for scientists to include, along with their CVs, lists of all funding received in the past 10 years on their institutional websites. Relatedly, biased aspects of peer review should be purged. Selection of potential reviewers could be expanded from the narrow subset of privileged individuals chosen by editors (or more worryingly, those recommended by the authors themselves) to a broader cross-section of the scientific community. Of course, a more open commentary must be curated to ensure civility and constructive criticism and to protect reviewers from reprisals. These ideas need testing and refinement but we should not delay.

Discarding one metaphor and erecting another may help us to re-imagine and communicate the relationship of science to the public. We should want an inviting, airy place to discuss ideas and debate – not a cold, airless, colonial ivory fortress to defend. I recommend we embrace the fire tower's transparency to climb high, see far, and be heard widely. Heights also provide priceless quiet and detachment. Science can regain its privileged high position, not to look down on our fellows, but for unimpeded distant views and to amplify our findings.