Who holds the power in research?

I am afraid for the future of research. I am terrified of the results that we currently accept, seemingly without question. Money determines what voices are heard, and science is increasingly shaped by capital rather than curiosity.

Richard Feynman once said that “science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” The physicist meant that science is never absolute, but rather must be open to revision, to new understandings that challenge the status quo. Today, it is almost too clear that Feynman’s words take on a new warning. Experts, institutions, and research itself are subject to increasing funding pressures that shape what gets studied and the desired results. These distortions in the pursuit of scientific truth taint science’s credibility. It feels as if we are halfway down a slide and are trying to grasp at the hot plastic below our fingers, clawing at any chance to try again, to restructure our institutions. 

The CBGL toolkit on co-construction challenged me to ask: Who holds the power in research? In theory, science is the neutral pursuit of knowledge. Truthfully, it is shaped by who funds it, who demands results, who owns the data, and who is left out. The traditional research model often treats community members as objects, as means to an end, rather than as co-creators of this knowledge. The farther we drift from community-based research, the more fragile the integrity of the process becomes. 

The answer is simple—we must embrace the notion of co-construction at every level. We must bring in diverse voices, not just as tokens, but rather as true collaborators. People must stand before prestige, and we must value impact over income. My scientific community works hard to achieve this, but can still do more to be wholly inclusive by sharing data, giving credit, embracing accountability, and engaging in community decision-making.  This isn’t idealism, but rather necessary for research to be trustworthy and just. 

It is not enough to see inequalities without action. Science, as much as I hate to admit it, is largely inaccessible. Research is expensive. Academia is elitist.  Many institutions are financially inaccessible and intellectually exclusive, seemingly sworn to protect their prestige over public knowledge. If the future of science lies in the hands of those who can indeed afford to fund it, we have already lost the spirit of discovery. Innovative spirits and organic commitment to the sciences must be prioritized. 

Ethical, community-driven, authentic research lies just beyond inclusivity. This means scholarships, increased public funding, and institutional accountability. The scientific mind must not be bought, for I argue it exists to seek the truth. 

As I move forward this summer, I feel tense. I am eternally grateful for the opportunity to spend my summer immersed in productive and ethical scientific labor. I believe in science. I believe in radically transparent, inclusive, responsible, community-based science. Ensuring co-construction ensures science remains science.