We've kind of drifted. If you look at the mid-20th century, science was the undisputed engine of the future. It gave us the moon landing, polio vaccines, and the transistor. It was bold. People trusted it. But lately, things feel different. There’s a growing sense that we need to make science great again, not by going backward, but by fixing the broken pipes in how we fund, share, and verify discovery.
Trust is at an all-time low. It’s messy.
When people talk about this movement, they aren't usually asking for more lab coats. They’re asking for transparency. They’re tired of "paywalled" research that taxpayers already funded. They're skeptical of the "reproducibility crisis"—a scary phenomenon where scientists can't recreate the results of famous studies. To really fix this, we have to look at the guts of the system.
The Problem With The "Publish or Perish" Culture
The incentive structure is totally skewed. Right now, a scientist’s career depends on how many papers they get into "high-impact" journals like Nature or Science. It sounds logical, right? Except it leads to "p-hacking," where researchers massage data just enough to get a statistically significant result. They need that win. They need that grant.
If we want to make science great again, we have to reward the boring stuff. We need to celebrate the "null result." Honestly, knowing that a drug doesn't work is just as important as knowing it does. But try getting a prestigious journal to publish a paper that says, "Hey, we tried this for three years and nothing happened." It’s nearly impossible.
This creates a "file drawer effect." Thousands of failed experiments sit in drawers while the world only sees the flashy, sometimes exaggerated, successes. This isn't just a blow to academic integrity; it’s a massive waste of human capital and money.
Open Science Is The Real Revolution
Imagine if every piece of raw data from every clinical trial was available to the public. That’s the dream of the Open Science movement. It's a huge part of the push to make science great again.
Groups like the Center for Open Science (COS), led by Brian Nosek, are pushing for "Preregistration." This is basically a "call your shot" rule. Scientists have to state their hypothesis and how they'll analyze the data before they start the experiment. No moving the goalposts later. No cherry-picking the best-looking graphs after the fact.
- Transparency: No more secret datasets.
- Accessibility: Scientific knowledge shouldn't cost $35 per PDF.
- Collaboration: Using platforms like GitHub for biology and chemistry.
DeSci: Can Decentralization Save Discovery?
There’s a new kid on the block: Decentralized Science, or DeSci. It sounds like tech-bro jargon, but it’s actually pretty interesting. It uses blockchain technology to change how research is funded.
Traditional grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) can take years to secure. Young researchers spend up to 50% of their time writing grant applications instead of actually being in the lab. That's a tragedy. DeSci projects like Molecule or VitaDAO allow communities to fund research directly.
Think of it like crowdfunding for longevity research or rare disease treatments. It bypasses the gatekeepers. If we’re going to make science great again, we need to cut the red tape that keeps brilliant 25-year-olds from testing their wildest ideas.
The War on Misinformation
We can't ignore the elephant in the room. Public skepticism.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the "scientific consensus" shifted rapidly. That’s actually how science is supposed to work—it updates with new data—but to the general public, it felt like flip-flopping. To bridge this gap, scientists need to stop acting like high priests of truth and start acting like guides.
We need more people like Carl Sagan or Richard Feynman. People who can explain how we know what we know, rather than just telling us what to believe. Humility is a scientific virtue.
The Economic Engine We Forgot
Science isn't just about curiosity; it’s about the economy. Basic research—the kind of "useless" stuff where you just poke at atoms to see what happens—is what led to the GPS in your phone and the MRI machines in our hospitals.
In the 1960s, U.S. federal R&D spending was nearly 2% of GDP. Today? It’s hovering around 0.7%. We've shifted toward "applied science," which is just a fancy way of saying "stuff we can sell next year." But you can't have applied science without the deep, foundational discoveries.
To make science great again, we have to be willing to fund things that might not pay off for twenty years. We need to be okay with "wasteful" exploration. That's where the breakthroughs live.
Why Peer Review Is Broken (And How to Fix It)
Peer review is supposed to be the gold standard. A scientist submits a paper, and three anonymous experts tear it apart. But these experts are usually tired, overworked, and unpaid. They often miss glaring errors.
We've seen cases like the Sokal Squared hoax where journals published absolute nonsense because it used the right buzzwords.
💡 You might also like: Why NSFW Filters Are Getting Weirder (and Smarter) in 2026
A solution? Post-publication peer review. Sites like PubPeer allow scientists to comment on papers after they are out. It’s like a permanent, living critique. It keeps everyone on their toes. If a result can't be replicated, the community finds out in weeks, not decades. This kind of accountability is exactly what's needed to make science great again.
Practical Steps to Support Great Science
It’s easy to feel like a spectator, but the "science-industrial complex" responds to public pressure and individual choices. We don't need more "I Follow Science" bumper stickers; we need a more rigorous approach to how we consume information.
Support Open Access. When you see a paywall, don't just give up. Use tools like Unpaywall or look for "preprint" versions on arXiv or bioRxiv. These are versions of papers shared before they hit the journals.
Demand Data. If a news article says "a study found X," look for the link to the actual data. If it’s not there, be skeptical. Real science thrives under the microscope, not behind a "trust me" headline.
Engage with Citizen Science. You don't need a PhD to contribute. Projects like Zooniverse let regular people help NASA find exoplanets or help biologists track migratory patterns. Being part of the process demystifies it.
Advocate for Long-term Funding. Push for policies that fund basic research without demanding an immediate ROI. Tell your representatives that the next "internet-level" invention depends on a scientist asking a weird question today.
To make science great again, we have to stop treating it as a static collection of facts. It’s a process. It’s a messy, self-correcting, often frustrating journey toward truth. By demanding better incentives, more transparency, and a return to "blue-sky" thinking, we can ensure the next century is as transformative as the last one.
Focus on the methodology, not just the results. Support the researchers who admit when they're wrong. That's the only way forward.