The day I first set foot on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s campus, an uncharacteristic heat baked the concrete walkways and radiated off the twisted steel facades. The quads were green, empty of students who had fled to air-conditioned lounges. Far off, the pavement seemed to shimmer with possibility. I did too—I felt like I had finally arrived. It was August of 2018. The story of a scientist that had begun at a community college in the Appalachian foothills was reaching its rightful zenith. But just like the ripples on the asphalt, it was a mirage.
The fata morgana on my horizon was the illusion that science is a quiet, orderly, aristocratic thing. Science happened in million-dollar labs at Ivy League institutions—the kind with clean whiteboards, new equipment, and donor names over the doors. I thought science belonged on a pedestal behind a wall. I believed in the myth of the ivory tower.
This isolationist model of science does not serve the society and the moment we live in. Public trust in science has sharply declined since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. In January of 2019, 73 percent of Americans said that science had a “mostly positive effect on society.” By October of 2023, that number had fallen to 57 percent, according to the Pew Research Center. Even though the National Science Foundation reports that support for federal funding of scientific research has remained relatively steady for decades, nearly one in four Americans believe that scientists do not act in the best interest of the public.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Of course, there’s plenty of blame to go around outside the ivory tower. Many of society’s loudest voices decry vaccines or espouse conspiracy theories. With skepticism of mass media at a record high (39 percent of Americans report “no trust at all”), many turn to alternative, unvetted sources of news. One of the most popular podcasts of our era, The Joe Rogan Experience, has tens of millions of listeners across various platforms and hosts antivaccine speakers like Robert Malone, while praising notable antiscience voices such as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Americans also hear from their own members of Congress that global warming is a hoax, evolution is a lie, drinking unpasteurized (“raw”) milk is safe, and the federal government is concealing evidence of aliens. Even state governments cherry-pick the science—or lack thereof—that is included in public K–12 curricula.
Science is uniquely poised to combat the creep of this agenda, but much like a creature finding itself in a hostile new environment, it must adapt. Scientists cannot continue to cordon themselves off from the world and simply expect the public to take their results at face value. If a person hears from a podcaster who says a vaccine will hurt them, but not from a scientist who might explain how it works, why should they take it? For many, surviving in a rapidly changing world means taking fewer risks. It means working with what you trust, what has worked in the past. It means being wary of the unfamiliar. Science is increasingly—intentionally—being pushed out of the realm of what you trust and into the realm of the unfamiliar.
Scientists must resist this push. We owe this to society—to one another—because the people around us created the environment in which we were able to become scientists. We must remember that people who were not scientists built a world where a child who watches the stars barefoot from a hay meadow can grow up to be an astrophysicist.
The ivory tower functions like a black box. Federal funding and faceless men in lab coats go in; vaccines, climate predictions and invasive computer algorithms come out. This starts with the apprenticeship model of education: professors take on one or a few graduate students and train them to become a professor themselves. Arriving at just the selection point is a gauntlet in itself, a playing field tilted in favor of those with wealth, and all the inequities contained within.
In the ascent, students learn to conduct research, to write technical reports and to share high-level results with other scientists—all in the slim hopes of obtaining a permanent academic position. To speak of the realistic job market is taboo. To learn “soft” skills such as public speaking and accessible writing is worthy of scorn. To leave is to fail. As a result, science produces a glut of Ph.D.s without the skills or interest to engage with the real world problems their knowledge could help to solve.
Dismantling the ivory tower for the good of society means challenging the process that creates scientists and the biases that underpin it. The apprenticeship model should not be discarded, but rebuilt, expanded. Graduate programs must shift their focus from minting lengthy resumes to creating scientists who understand the context in which their work belongs. They must stop regarding outreach and science communication as trivial distractions from research, and start making them mandatory, even central elements of the curriculum.
Furthermore, we must shed the elitism that permeates our field. A scientific hierarchy, even one we believe to be meritocratic, always puts the people who need us most at the bottom. And why should anyone listen to someone who is talking down to them? We are not above the public. We are part of it, and we must use our training and our knowledge to better it.
I wish I could bottle the way I felt that hot Cambridge day. I wish I could stash it away, to be enjoyed like a nostalgic perfume. Because as misguided as it was, it felt good. The ivory tower’s siren song promises a safe and certain world, a dishonest picture of science untroubled by the trials of the outside. It’s a mirage, a ghost ship that carries no passengers, an oasis without water. So we must press on without it, through a world that is dark and uncertain and very real. But free of our tower, we have the power to change it.
This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.