Should science be slowed down?
Does the acceleration of scientific discoveries promise faster solutions to humanity’s problems? Or is it likely instead to accelerate the loss of research quality and its alignment with social issues and values? Debate.
Photo: Provided by subject
Photo: Provided by subject
Science today moves faster than ever. New tools allow us to produce data at a pace that would have been unimaginable just few years ago. Speed has become a virtue in itself. But this raises an important question: what is good about being faster?
Scientific knowledge is not only a product; it is a process that requires careful validation, critical debate, and time for reflection. When the pace accelerates too much, these elements are under pressure. Peer review becomes rushed, replication is neglected, and researchers are encouraged to publish quickly rather than thoroughly. The result is not just an overwhelming flood of information, but also growing uncertainty about what can genuinely be trusted and what might be misleading, premature or even false.
Slowing down science does not mean resisting innovation or technological progress. It means acknowledging that good research takes time: time to think, to explore ideas, to question, to engage with others, and to correct mistakes.
It also allows for more thoughtful integration of ethical, social and environmental considerations – elements that are often overlooked when speed dominates.
Society also needs time to understand, debate and respond to scientific developments. If knowledge production moves faster than public discussion, decisions may be made without sufficient reflection, unintentionally reinforcing existing imbalances or overlooking perspectives that deserve attention. Science then risks drifting away from society, and confidence in research may weaken.
There is also a human dimension. A fast pace in academia can increase stress, encourage short-term thinking, and make career paths uncertain. A slower, more thoughtful approach could support sustainable research, healthier working environments, and ultimately more meaningful contributions to science.
Slowing down science is not about doing less, but about doing better. It is about rebalancing speed with quality, productivity with responsibility, and innovation with reflection – so that science serves both knowledge and society in the long run.
Mirjam Heldner is a neurologist and stroke doctor at the Inselspital, University Hospital of Bern. She has contributed to the Better Science Initiative.
If you want to slow down science, you’re going to have to face uncomfortable questions. What exactly don’t you want us to discover? What therapies won’t we need tomorrow? What problems should we leave for our grandchildren to grapple with? Any call to slam on the brakes can sound reasonable until you think it through. Then it quickly becomes absurd.
If we take a look at history, we can see that three specific groups have been primarily responsible for seeking to put the brakes on science: religious fundamentalists, authoritarian regimes and economic interest groups. Today’s debate is naturally driven by different motives. But the basic impulse is a familiar one. Someone claims that they should decide what scientific findings are premature. Those people are apparently confident that humanity is insufficiently mature for it to know certain things.
People in favour of slowing down often then argue that their aim is not to put the brakes on. They just want to set guidelines to prevent dangerous outcomes. Such concerns are legitimate, but they mistakenly target science itself instead of how it’s applied. They’re confusing knowledge with its application, research with its product. This is a tricky business because those who want to put the brakes on research are also putting the brakes on our understanding of its risks. That makes the world a less safe place.
In today’s context, calls to slow down science are often aimed at artificial intelligence. People argue that it’s developing too quickly, and that we’re losing control over the quality of scientific articles, for example. This problem is real. But it’s not a problem with science itself. It’s a problem with a system of publication that was designed for a different era. If we want to ensure quality, then we have to focus on how we evaluate things, not on issues of speed.
To be sure, not every scientific discovery is automatically a blessing. There exists a very real potential for misuse. But the best answer to risk has never been ignorance. We conduct research out of curiosity, out of a sense of fascination, and out of a desire to understand the world. We conduct research because the understanding it brings ultimately improves people’s lives. It leads to safer treatments, cleaner energy and more precise diagnostics. All this requires guidance, rules and responsibility – not putting on the brakes.
Marcel Salathé heads the Digital Epidemiology Lab at EPFL and is co-director of its AI Center.
Photo: Provided by subject
Science today moves faster than ever. New tools allow us to produce data at a pace that would have been unimaginable just few years ago. Speed has become a virtue in itself. But this raises an important question: what is good about being faster?
Scientific knowledge is not only a product; it is a process that requires careful validation, critical debate, and time for reflection. When the pace accelerates too much, these elements are under pressure. Peer review becomes rushed, replication is neglected, and researchers are encouraged to publish quickly rather than thoroughly. The result is not just an overwhelming flood of information, but also growing uncertainty about what can genuinely be trusted and what might be misleading, premature or even false.
Slowing down science does not mean resisting innovation or technological progress. It means acknowledging that good research takes time: time to think, to explore ideas, to question, to engage with others, and to correct mistakes.
It also allows for more thoughtful integration of ethical, social and environmental considerations – elements that are often overlooked when speed dominates.
Society also needs time to understand, debate and respond to scientific developments. If knowledge production moves faster than public discussion, decisions may be made without sufficient reflection, unintentionally reinforcing existing imbalances or overlooking perspectives that deserve attention. Science then risks drifting away from society, and confidence in research may weaken.
There is also a human dimension. A fast pace in academia can increase stress, encourage short-term thinking, and make career paths uncertain. A slower, more thoughtful approach could support sustainable research, healthier working environments, and ultimately more meaningful contributions to science.
Therefore, slowing down science is not about doing less, but about doing better. It is about rebalancing speed with quality, productivity with responsibility, and innovation with reflection – so that science serves both knowledge and society in the long run.
Mirjam Heldner is a neurologist and stroke doctor at the Inselspital, University Hospital of Bern. She has contributed to the Better Science Initiative.
Photo: Provided by subject
If you want to slow down science, you’re going to have to face uncomfortable questions. What exactly don’t you want us to discover? What therapies won’t we need tomorrow? What problems should we leave for our grandchildren to grapple with? Any call to slam on the brakes can sound reasonable until you think it through. Then it quickly becomes absurd.
If we take a look at history, we can see that three specific groups have been primarily responsible for seeking to put the brakes on science: religious fundamentalists, authoritarian regimes and economic interest groups. Today’s debate is naturally driven by different motives. But the basic impulse is a familiar one. Someone claims that they should decide what scientific findings are premature. Those people are apparently confident that humanity is insufficiently mature for it to know certain things.
People in favour of slowing down often then argue that their aim is not to put the brakes on. They just want to set guidelines to prevent dangerous outcomes. Such concerns are legitimate, but they mistakenly target science itself instead of how it’s applied. They’re confusing knowledge with its application, research with its product. This is a tricky business because those who want to put the brakes on research are also putting the brakes on our understanding of its risks. That makes the world a less safe place.
In today’s context, calls to slow down science are often aimed at artificial intelligence. People argue that it’s developing too quickly, and that we’re losing control over the quality of scientific articles, for example. This problem is real. But it’s not a problem with science itself. It’s a problem with a system of publication that was designed for a different era. If we want to ensure quality, then we have to focus on how we evaluate things, not on issues of speed.
To be sure, not every scientific discovery is automatically a blessing. There exists a very real potential for misuse. But the best answer to risk has never been ignorance. We conduct research out of curiosity, out of a sense of fascination, and out of a desire to understand the world. We conduct research because the understanding it brings ultimately improves people’s lives. It leads to safer treatments, cleaner energy and more precise diagnostics. All this requires guidance, rules and responsibility – not putting on the brakes.
Marcel Salathé heads the Digital Epidemiology Lab at EPFL and is co-director of its AI Center.
