Chapter 1: Understanding Hidden Power Structures

In this series of blog posts, I share my insights on the challenges within academic culture, drawing from my experience as a former early career researcher. Over twelve years in British academia—spanning roles at institutions like Oxford, King’s College, and University College London (2008-2020)—has equipped me with a unique perspective.

Other installments in this series include: Part 0 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

Problem #1: The Influence of Hidden Power Networks

#### Problem Overview

A certain type of ambitious academic quickly discovers that there’s a quicker path to career advancement through power accumulation and strategic positioning rather than through the slow and laborious process of publishing robust scientific findings. While this behavior is exhibited by a minority, they form tight-knit groups that exert a disproportionate amount of influence over entire scientific domains.

#### Mechanisms and Impacts

High-impact publications and the securing of grants are crucial for propelling a scientific career. Generously fueling this engine leads to acceleration; restricting it results in stagnation. The allocation of this “fuel” is managed by panels that review submissions, ultimately deciding on the fate of manuscripts and funding requests.

This already flawed process has deteriorated into a pressing issue due to two main factors: a complete lack of accountability and the concentration of power among a select few. Individuals who dominate multiple panels effectively control the research agenda within their fields, determining which studies receive funding or publication and which are overlooked or dismissed.

Given that these decisions occur anonymously and without scrutiny, panel members can make choices influenced by personal biases, strategic considerations, and institutional affiliations. Common reasons for rejection include:

• The applicant's institutional affiliation, potentially seeing a competitor as a threat.
• The prestige of the institution, favoring those from elite schools.
• Conflicts with prevailing theories or ideas that may challenge their own work.
• Personal grudges or past disputes.
• The practice of influence trafficking, where favors are exchanged among powerful individuals.

Consequently, it can be more beneficial for a researcher’s career to participate in funding and editorial panels rather than focusing on experimental research, ultimately hindering scientific progress and the broader application of its benefits to society.

Recommendations for Reform

1. Establish Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Limit the accumulation of power by imposing time restrictions on positions within funding and editorial boards to prevent small groups from gaining undue influence.
2. Direct Funding for Preprint Repositories: Support platforms like biorXiv, which offer open access to research findings, free from political interference.
3. Revamp Grant Panel Membership: Diversify membership criteria to include scientists at various career stages, from different institutional backgrounds, and from both academia and industry to combat biases and enrich decision-making.
4. Enhance Accountability: Maintain detailed minutes of funding panel discussions and create standard reporting mechanisms for justifications regarding submission decisions.
5. Implement Grant Funding Lotteries: After identifying top submissions, use a lottery system to distribute funding among them, minimizing bias and diversifying research support.
6. Limit Funding Accumulation per Researcher: Encourage a diversified approach to funding, akin to investment strategies, to maximize returns on scientific inquiries rather than concentrating resources on a few individuals.

Closing Remarks

Political dynamics are inherent to any group activity, but when a small faction holds excessive sway, it can become detrimental. In science, we must promote diversity—both in personnel and ideas—foster healthy competition, and uphold transparency. The presence of hidden power networks poses a direct threat to these fundamental principles.

What Lies Ahead?

I welcome your thoughts in the comments or on social media. Up next: Problem #2: Individualism, Ambition, and Misaligned Goals.

André Marques-Smith, DPhil (Oxon). Neuroscientist and Neurotechnologist. Discover more about my work on my website and connect with me on Twitter and LinkedIn.

The first video explores the advanced audio system in the Tesla Model X, detailing its design and engineering, which embodies the intersection of technology and luxury in modern vehicles.

The second video discusses the implications of the Cybersyn project in Chile, shedding light on how digital aspirations were interrupted by political upheaval, illustrating the complex relationship between technology and society.