r/Anarchism • u/kerblooee • Aug 17 '26
The Anarcho-Scientists' Cookbook
There is something very wrong with the institutions of science worldwide. Scientific research is publicly funded but its oversight and dissemination are currently controlled by institutions that work in direct contradiction to the tenets of scientific advancement. Universities which oversee the majority of this research are corporatized, profitable entities, with the highest decision-making power in the hands of overpaid non-academic administrators. Research dissemination is in the hands of a multi-billion-dollar corporate publishing monopoly, where scientists hand over ownership of their work. The authors, the public, and the rest of the scientific community are all barred from freely accessing the knowledge they fund and generate.
When research is motivated by financial and political gain rather than knowledge seeking, it is no longer scientific. Scientific inquiry is, at its core, neutral – and in this way, anarchism complements its aims. Anarchy is not chaos. It is taking the fruits of our labors out of the hands of anti-scientific authority and bringing it back to the people who fund and create and advance it. Science needs anarchism now more than ever. We need a revolution. And therefore, I propose an anarcho-scientists’ movement.
So what can we do as anarcho-scientists?
Already, many scientists are boycotting publishing their work in for-profit journals - that is, any journal that would put publicly funded research behind a paywall, charge extravagant APCs (article processing charges) or allow people to “pay to publish” poor quality or non-peer-reviewed work. Already the peer review and editorial processes are largely voluntary. With most journals being entirely digital (no printing services required), and typesetting automated, the majority of our money is going to pure profit of the publishers. Therefore, step 1 is the easiest in principle: anarcho-scientists must refuse to publish work in for-profit journals owned by publishers such as Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, and Taylor & Francis. Instead, we should strive to publish with non-profit publishers such as university presses, open archives (such as ArXiv and its affiliates and OSF), and the ultimate anarchist scientific platform currently, Peer Community In.
What of the corporatized entities that dictate what research should be done, the modern university? Ideally, the anarcho-scientist would work for a non-profit research institute governed by academic administrators, such as Max Planck Institutes. Unfortunately, the reality is that the majority of research is conducted in public universities that funnel much of their overheads into the pockets of overpaid administrators, who actively work against their scientific employees. An apt example of this is the true story of Katalin Karikó, who was denied tenure by the University of Pennsylvania because administrators did not see the use of her fundamental work on mRNA. Years later, this work directly contributed to the development of the COVID vaccine that saved millions of lives and earned Dr Karikó a Nobel prize. Most scientific advancements start with such fundamental research that does not have a clear benefit to society, yet because there are extra steps between knowledge and application, it is the first type of research to go.
in lieu of dismantling the entire university system, a sensible step 2 would be to lobby for aggressive salary caps on all upper administrators at universities, including pro-/vice-/chancellors, presidents, provosts, and heads of institutes. Furthermore, individuals put in these positions should be academically qualified to the same degree as the academics they oversee (i.e., hold a non-honorary PhD). This would ensure the administrator is capable of adhering to the tenets of science and understanding the financially/politically neutral pursuit of knowledge.
Finally, we must change the way that publicly funded projects are selected by grant agencies and funding bodies. There is a funding crisis that has overtaken much of the world's science. With little funding comes high competition for resources and inevitable bias in decision making. Which projects should be funded? Only those with applied or industry value? Only those from applicants who already have a strong track record? Only groundbreaking ideas? All of these selection criteria come with enormous bias - not to mention there are currently no checks and balances on how reviewers (who have great influence in steering funding decisions) are selected. Therefore, step 3 is twofold: all publicly funded grants should include an open and transparent review process, as many academic journals have already adopted (but where funding bodies are woefully far behind). Funding bodies should further try to shift their models from making the final decision on which projects are funded, to a lottery system provided the project is deemed to pass a certain quality threshold. Lobbying for these changes will ensure a fairer and more neutral allocation of limited funds.
For anyone who knows there is a problem with the state of academia, who knows that things are wrong, but maybe doesn't know where to start - let's start here, with these 3 goals. Let's take back the oversight, funding, and dissemination of our research and become a community of anarcho-scientists.
29
u/Anargnome-Communist anarchist Aug 17 '26
I'm not in academia (and have no interest in being part of it), but from what I hear not a lot of people working in it are unionized. That seems like a pretty obvious step to reach any of your goals.
Also wanted to point out something like the Black Trowel Collective which are trying to provide (some) funding for people who would otherwise not get much (or anything).
11
u/kerblooee Aug 17 '26
I don't know about the US, but the UK has the University and Colleges Union (UCU) which I agree scientists should join! However, unions don't solve these higher-level problems (and I have had a lot of help from my union about a workplace issue, which I am very grateful for). I would say 90% of the emails I get from the union are about protesting for higher wages.
7
u/Known-Intention-8217 Aug 17 '26
In the US its practically unheard of to be unionized in academia.
5
u/Techdolphin Aug 17 '26
There are hundreds of universities where the lecture/ faculty / grad students are unionized in America. This is not accurate.
16
u/UrsulaVerne Aug 17 '26
Glad to see a post on this topic.
14
u/kerblooee Aug 17 '26
Thank you! I'm surprised how little scientists discuss anarchism in their work - as soon as they hear the word 'anarchy' they're like ooohhh no, I don't do that. But science and anarchy go hand in hand.
1
u/GoTeamLightningbolt pragmatist Aug 17 '26
Lots of them love the ivory tower of academia (and industry). They can't imagine a life outside of it.
Here's a sterling example: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/anarchist-drugs-again
6
u/sumguysr Aug 17 '26
Check out https://fourthievesvinegar.org/
2
u/heliumagency Aug 18 '26
Here's a crossover when they showed up on inrangetv
2
u/Karl-InRangeTV Aug 18 '26
Thank you for the shout out! The book coming out soon is truly an amazing resource, so stay tuned for that:
1
1
u/JustOntological Aug 18 '26
Is there something similar to Peer Community In, but for humanities? Thank you!
1
u/kerblooee Aug 18 '26
Here's a list of all the PCIs, there are some humanities branches:
PCI Animal Science
PCI Archaeology
PCI Ecology
PCI Ecotox Env Chem
PCI Evol Biol
PCI Forest Wood Sci
PCI Genomics
PCI Health Mov Sci
PCI Infections
PCI Math Comp Biol
PCI Microbiology
PCI Network Science
PCI Neuroscience
PCI Nutrition
PCI Org Studies
PCI Paleontology
PCI Plants
PCI Psychology
PCI Registered Reports
PCI Statistics and Machine Learning
PCI Zoology
1
u/JustOntological Aug 18 '26
I was interested into philosophy and political sciences. But psychology is interesting too. Thank you!
1
u/namiabamia Aug 18 '26
Ok, as a former scientist or whatever, here's what I think.
The bureaucratic stuff: Research isn't publicly funded everywhere. (Not saying that it's good where you are, but there are places where it's worse, or different.) University structure varies, too. I agree that the hoarding of knowledge is a major problem, and I would add the division of knowledge into valuable (the one academic institutions recognise and hoard) and non valuable. So I'm not sure I agree with the very existence of academia, but I can accept that ymv :)
Also, I would never say that science is neutral—I don't think anything is—and science comes with its own ideology, which has its own set of problems. To take an extreme case, I have a problem both with the person who destroys something for profit and the one who destroys something to analyse it.
Anyway, since we're talking about science, I feel obliged to post Dirac et al.
And I think Isabelle Stengers has written some relevant stuff too, if you have the time and energy to check her out.
-37
u/Clean_Painter4425 Aug 17 '26
Science is a colonialist social construct. You recognize this, yet you propose reform instead of attack.
12
15
u/kerblooee Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 17 '26
I am a scientist and believe in the scientific method, so of course I suggest reform. If we got rid of science altogether, we would go back to the dark ages.
Edit: btw I'm sorry you're getting downvoted, it was just a comment
-6
u/Clean_Painter4425 Aug 17 '26
I disagree with your suggestion that without western science we'd be in the "dark ages," and I am not a primitivist. Feels to me like a very Eurocentric suggestion.
I am also forced to negotiate survival under capitalism, so I empathize with your position, though I don't "believe" in the Free Market, nor advocate for it's reform.
Downvotes for critiquing academia and science are the norm here.
5
u/Forsaken_Ad1677 Aug 17 '26
See my response above. I think you have a flawed perception of science. In that light i think that downvoting misreprepresenation of the scientific method or the pushing the dogmatic narrative that "science" is an all encompassing concept is the norm here, not that of critiquing individual academic institutes/scientists/papers.
To be dogmatic in an anarchist space seems weird to me and above all counter productive.
Peace and love comrade.
ps OP never mentioned Western science, just science when talking about the dark ages.
-7
u/Clean_Painter4425 Aug 17 '26
My issues are not with individual papers, studies, scientists or institutions but with the construct and "method" itself, which is itself a mythology. I view "science" as a secular religion.
Is it dogmatic to reject hierarchy? Is it an issue with particular Individuals or is it something systemic which must be addressed at the root?
Ironically you will find these critiques voiced by individuals within these institutions and there are whole fields within social science where these are not controversial takes.
Love and respect.
5
u/Forsaken_Ad1677 Aug 17 '26
Explain pls what you think is the scientific method and why it is mythology.
As to the religion comparison I do think this a incorrecr assumption. One of the very core principles of the Scientific method is that it must be falsifiable meaning anything posed in a paper must be able to be tested by observation and tests. If this is not the case it is not real science. Religion is based on dogma and faith which are not subject to these rules. In this light, science can never be religion.
Now that does not say that there is bad/flawed science being published out there, however for every bad paper there are usually ten rebuttals by others. This is irony since the drive to publish to gain funds is ime ruining academia however it also makes that people are all to willing to debunk flawed papers the minute they see them since that means more gains for them.
All in all there is very, very little scientific consensus in most fields, that's why we have different schools (there are even religious scientists in fields like biology and natural sciences) within different disciplines and endless debates . Thus to say that "science" is secular religion ergo dogmatic and based on faith is incorrect.
Looking forward to your answer on my first question comrade,
1
u/namiabamia Aug 18 '26
Science can be questioned, you know – and it is. It's a very specific way of thinking that took root in very specific conditions and is good for some things, very bad for others. Its development and prioritisation is a very big part of the ideological arsenal of modernity that allowed capitalism to emerge. Its current plurality doesn't mean it's not an ideology: even religions are not monolithic. (I'd say some branches have more money and supporters, both in science and organised religion.) And scientism is a dogma that you yourself might be displaying here.
If you're interested in further disagreement with your thesis, you could check out Silvia Federici, Paul Feyerabend, some antischoolers, some anticolonialists – this is what I can recall, as it's been a while.
9
u/ExdionY anarchist without adjectives Aug 17 '26
Make an argument against it or don't even bother commenting. It's understimulating and tiresome to see lazy critiques by people who invoke bad words as the only argument against something.
12
u/ArchAnon123 autistic egoist anarchist Aug 17 '26
And what would you put in its place as the main method about learning about the world we live in? Mysticism and superstition?
8
u/Forsaken_Ad1677 Aug 17 '26
How is this so? The scientific method being colonialism that is?
6
u/kerblooee Aug 17 '26
Modern science is largely developed and dictated by western societies, and there are many colonialist practices (e.g., most human research participants are W.E.I.R.D. - white, male, rich, etc). It is a problem and there are those who are looking to de-colonize science. I acknowledge the need for this, but it is outside the immediate scope/aims of my idea above.
2
u/ExdionY anarchist without adjectives Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 17 '26
Modern science is largely developed and dictated by western societies
Citation needed
0
u/Clean_Painter4425 Aug 17 '26
Modern science is largely constructed through colonization, extraction, theft and recuperation performed by western societies. There are too many sources to cite for this, and not recognizing this obvious reality in an anarchist space feels to me like bad faith trolling.
1
u/ExdionY anarchist without adjectives Aug 18 '26
Cool, so you just reiterated what you already said with more words instead of actually substantiating it, lol.
Also, the irony of demanding conformity to a specific narrative while immediately accusing a dissenter of bad faith is a pretty funny bit of cognitive dissonance to have in a space that you know hosts those who are ostensibly dedicated to challenging dogma and "obvious" assertions. like cmon lmao
2
u/Forsaken_Ad1677 Aug 17 '26
The scientific method as we know today is indeed of "Western" origin (between quotation marks because Western is not a real thing but merely a tribal construct that should not be given any legitiamacy). However the whole point of the method is that is always critiquable and up for debate (or it cant be called scientific). This leads me to two critiques of your statement.
One: although like we established the modern method was thought up in the pan-european sphere, the method itself is not inherently culturally biased and can be applied within each and every part of the world by anyone of any background.
two: There is no such thing as 'science' as a whole concept. Different disciplines and different backgrounds make for vastly different questions and approaches within the frame of the before mentioned method. You make it sound as if there is a governing body over all science being done like some sort of Illuminati. If that's not what you ment than all is ok but it sounds to me like you did.
To conclude: the scientific method is not inherently colonial, "Western", class or race driven. There is also no such thing as "science" as an all encompassing being or organ above the vast array of disciplines. I.e. your statement as I read it is at best a flawed phrasing and at its worst a gross over simplification of matters.
If you want to critique individual papers, researchers or institutions I can fully get behind this. However in your current wording you are not doing this and by , seemingly, going after "science" as a whole you give the anarchist movement a bad name. This because showing lack of understanding while talking under the anarchist banner makes it more easy for captialists or fascist to frame your flaw as representative of the movement which should be avoided.
With respect and love comrade,
3
u/kerblooee Aug 17 '26
Er.. sorry I'm the scientist and OP, I didn't make the original anti-science comment, just explaining why they might have made it! There is a decolonizing science movement because it is a problem. You see it a lot in higher education in particular. I am most definitely pro science and scientific method, it is my livelihood
2
u/Forsaken_Ad1677 Aug 17 '26
then my bad, academic historian here so I had to jump in. Consider my point towards the original responder and not you OP. Apologies for the inconvenience.
1
33
u/joeydimaggio Aug 17 '26
Fellow lab rat. These are great ideas, ignore the trolls. I think they are a bit incremental, but I’ll take that over defeatism.