How the availability of information affects the responsibility of the researcher?

As a forum for the publication of high-quality original research in Physiology and related disciplines, Acta Physiologica is, by its very nature, dedicated to the responsible advancement of scientific progress—and its communication. However, search terms such as “responsible research” entered into the journal homepage search field will retrieve 0 results. For a quick coffee break, let us sit back and consider for a moment concepts of scientific progress, its drivers, pitfalls and mechanisms of motivation and control.

How are we, as authors, publishers and readers, implementing concepts of high-quality, responsible research and the dissemination of its results into our everyday actions?

Epistemology distinguishes science “from other domains of human culture by its progressive nature”.¹ Research theorists are working on the main questions defining scientific progress, or rather, scientific change; watching, dissecting and analyzing how it happens, in a strikingly similar manner to how other disciplines, such as the life sciences, investigate their subject matters. Does knowledge grow, for example, in spurts and stalls, or is it a continuous, cumulative process?

Nisbet² famously argued that the latter view characterizes the Modern Age: Knowledge is driven by a gradual accumulation of data, facts or information, to which consecutive generations of researchers contribute. The famous philosophers of Enlightenment trusted the process to move mankind ever further toward discovering, ultimately, the truth. Thomas Kuhn, in the 1960s, coined the term “paradigm shifts,” when he contradicted this view: periodic revolutions, in his opinion, characterized scientific progress, while truth is not objective, but a consensus, based on what is known at a given point in time.³ Stop here for a second and imagine how simple yet important it is to communicate this: While knowledge gained in a responsible, reproducible process underlies all evidence-based decision-making, there is never “the truth” to be found, only consensus, which changes, and even more rapidly so whenever a lot of resources and efforts are invested, as was the case during the 2020/21 pandemic.

At Acta Physiologica, a lot of effort is invested into this responsible, reproducible process. Firstly, at Acta Physiologica, we are highly invested in upholding top standards biomedical research reporting, updating biannual guidelines for both authors as well as editors and reviewers.⁴ Not only are Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers regularly updated and reviewed rigorously, to publish high-quality original research and reviews: The journal encourages contributions from authors aiming at critically appraising and refining methods of scientific observation,⁵ examination,⁶ interpretation⁷ and dissemination,⁸ both within and outside of scientific communities.

Acta Physiologica has, over the recent years, seen a rather notable increase in both submissions⁹ and citations,^{10, 11} which fills us with humble pride. An increase in visibility comes with an even further increase in responsibility,¹² requiring an ever so conscious appraisal of the value of metric indices and their potential fallibility.¹³ Creating journal incentives for good science requires an investment, both financially and in terms of reviewers and editors contributing their expertise and valuable time.^{14, 15} However, we believe that Acta Physiologica Award does just that having been awarded recently to two outstanding research groups in the field of intestinal metabolism and regulation.^{16, 17}

Classical empiricist Francis Bacon wrote in 1605 that “Science discovery should be driven not just by the quest for intellectual enlightenment, but also for the relief of man's estate.” which implies how scientific progress is driven by external factors and needs. However, the progress made is then followed by the need for careful, responsible dissemination and interpretation.

What does the invention of letterpress printing around 1440 by Johann Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg, the 2020 pandemic, the recent common availability of AI-based tools and the also recently sparked interest in (and funding of) security-related research have in common? They all qualify as external, not strictly scientific events, which have quickly and radically affected both scientific advances and the availability of (scientific) information, both within scientific communities and to the general public.¹⁸

Martin Luther circulated his 95 theses in early German prints on October 31, 1517, to speak up against the abuse of and the business-like trade with Catholic indulgences. The moment was historic, as it was about nothing less than the interpretation of an absolute truth. For the majority of the population in Europe, the Bible was regarded as the universally valid work and explanatory model of the world, and the Bible alone (“sola scriptura”) had been the guide for questions about the nature of all things. This knowledge had for a long time been accessible only to a small clerical elite and cultivated in monasteries. It was not until the late Middle Ages that schools and universities emerged, increasing the demand for other books. The number of monks who knew how to write was no longer sufficient to reproduce the works. When Gutenberg did come up with the idea of combining individual movable type to form a printing master, he revolutionized letterpress printing, and the Bible became the world's first printed book, remaining a bestseller to this day. Bible interpretation was no longer left to scholars and the Pope. Luther wanted everyone, from peasants to nobles, to understand the content of the Bible. Hence, the invention of Johannes Gutenberg came just in time for Luther for the dissemination of the Bible and its interpretation. Therefore, the invention of modern printing marks a moment of transition from the Middle Ages to modern times, which was followed by upheaval and innovation. This also significantly influenced the development of the Reformation and, unfortunately, was anything but peaceful. The dispute over the absolute truth in the aftermath of this historical disputation led the Protestants—who followed the Reformation, and the Catholics—who insisted on the interpretive sovereignty of the institution of the Church of Rome not in the university lecture hall, but in a thirty-year war from 1618 to 1648. Prominent representatives were therefore not professors, but generals such as Gustav Adolf I, King of Sweden on the side of the Reformation and Alfred von Wallenstein on the side of the Catholics. Clearly, this became a war that was of course also politically instrumentalized by the current power blocs of Europe and triggered an endless conflict for hegemony in the Holy Roman Empire. The conflict developed so devastatingly that some areas of central Europe were completely depopulated, whole cities were razed to the ground and diseases and epidemics struck the countries in the worst way. As a result, a historical trauma developed which, with the 30-year war, has remained in the collective memory until today as an abysmal event.

How much wiser have we become since then? With the universities, secular learning, teaching and science rooms were formed and the clergy lost its educational sovereignty. However, inventions such as the Internet have been causing modern paradigm shifts in the Kuhnian sense. Knowledge is snatched from institutions, that is the universities and research institutions and is made available to the general public in a modern language, letting laymen make up their minds about the world and nature. Are we facing a new conflict here? Through multimedia platforms and fake news, the fight for the absolute truth has broken out again. A moment to pause and peacefully invite the new Gustav Adolfs and Alfred Wallensteins of our time into the lecture hall. Today, as then, we are told to argue with each other objectively and prudently.

Luther's original working title was “Disputation to clarify the power of indulgences.” It may be a time to consciously revive disputation culture (even if we know the risk of semi-public scientific discussions ending short of peaceful seasoned academics ready to draw daggers) and to communicate as openly as we can how scientific dispute propels us forward in search of knowledge, rather than negatively affecting scientists' egos and credibility. Truth is not absolute, there is only consensus, which is, by its very nature, volatile, especially in times in which a lot of effort is invested and scientific output is generated.

The Internet may lull readers into believing to have access to scientific information, maybe even the very scientific information that underlies political decision-making. Yet scientific information does not equal data, let alone raw data. Is this common knowledge? What about an awareness of how study design influenced the quality of the data gathered, how, by merely observing, we tamper with the system, how raw data cannot be “read” – scientists who published the data have interpreted them, expert committees have re-interpreted the interpretations and formulated recommendations based on that? Especially during 2020/2021, there has been vocal public criticism of (a) the differing conclusions between scientists and (b) changing expert recommendations as new results are surfacing in rapid succession, making political decision-making look less credible. This highlights the tremendous responsibility of us as scientists for (i) the quality of our data (ii) the publication and communication of our data and (iii) the communication toward non-scientist communities of how data are gathered, the process of data interpretation and publication, even and maybe the more so in a publish-or-perish system. Many will not listen, yet some will. At a time when less than 40% of (mostly highly educated German readers) consider research results as relevant for their daily lives,¹⁹ it may be time for even more incentives for good science quality and communication outside the current reward system.

None.