The GCC’s opportunity to pioneer new ways of doing science 
We live in an incredibly exciting time for scientific discovery. New technologies are opening up unprecedented possibilities to answer big questions, allowing us to explore the universe at the atomic level, delve into the mysteries of the human brain, and develop innovative solutions to global challenges. However, we are also witnessing inefficient use of R&D resources, wasted research efforts, and a reproducibility crisis. This is because, despite the advances we have made, a nagging truth remains: the way we do science is stuck in the past.
The paradigms governing scientific publishing, funding, and evaluation are outdated and no longer serve the needs of scientists or society. Incentive structures that favor prestige over rigor, offer a restrictive definition of “impact,” and limit access to data are just some of the systemic issues plaguing the current system. The moment to reimagine the way we conduct scientific research is now.
In places like the US, established research frameworks and limited federal funding pose significant challenges to innovation. These legacy systems, burdened by their maturity and inertia, make it enormously difficult to implement necessary changes to keep pace with modern realities. In contrast, the GCC is at a pivotal point. With its developing research infrastructure, it has the freedom to avoid importing the entrenched issues holding older systems back. I argue that this affords the GCC a unique greenfield opportunity to construct new systems so that it is not catching up but rather at the forefront of defining a new global standard for scientific inquiry. In this way, the GCC can pioneer new models of scientific research fitting for the 21st century.
Charlie Munger once said: “Show me the incentives, and I’ll show you the outcome.” Incentive structures are the backbone of any system, guiding behaviors and prioritizing values. When reimagining a system such as the scientific enterprise, examining these incentive structures is crucial because they directly influence the overall research direction. Today, our incentive structures are predominantly rooted in publishing and funding norms, steering efforts toward quantity over quality and short-term acclaim over long-term value. Since it is impossible to analyze every aspect of the scientific enterprise in one essay, and to spare both readers and Arab News editors (in my first column), I’ll focus here on just one key issue in dire need of reimagining: the role of the impact factor.
Incentive structures are the backbone of any system, guiding behaviors and prioritizing values. When reimagining a system such as the scientific enterprise, examining these incentive structures is crucial because they directly influence the overall research direction.
Oftentimes, our incentive structure drives scientists to focus (for their very survival and career advancement) on “safe” research that will guarantee a publication. If the scientist is well-resourced, they might even design a study solely with the goal of publishing in a prestigious journal. Usually, when a journal is referred to as prestigious, that means it has a high impact factor, a citations-based measure that journals like to tout in order to attract “good” papers. I and many like me argue that the problem of the impact factor is one of the worst things to happen to science in the modern era — a fact I am not overstating.
The impact factor was originally designed to help librarians make informed decisions about journal subscriptions and had nothing to do with assessing the quality of a given research paper. For expediency, it is now evolved to be a proxy for the quality of a scientific article and, by extension, the quality of the researchers behind it. This created a distorted incentive structure where scientists are catering their work to the culture of the journal’s brand, sacrificing scientific rigor and avoiding risky questions and instead prioritizing flashy results that are more likely to be accepted.
In short, collectively around the world, we are using a tool intended for librarians to manage their inventories to judge which scientists get funded, hired, promoted, tenured, and supported — all this instead of just evaluating the science itself.
Imagine if rather than rewarding scientists based on impact factor, we built a system that rewards creativity, risk-taking, sound design, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Not only will this lessen waste of resources and research efforts, but it will allow new and innovative lines of scientific inquiry to breathe that find themselves suffocating under the constraints of the current system.
The way we conduct science is a choice that society makes; it is not an inevitability. The truth is that the most optimal way to do science has yet to be developed; we have just taken for granted that the framework with the largest hegemony is the best one. There is so much we can reimagine.
The time for incremental change is long over. We need bold vision and a willingness to experiment. Rather than simply catching up with other countries, the GCC has the opportunity to leapfrog ahead and establish a new models for scientific research. By fostering a culture of innovation, collaboration, and open science, GCC countries can attract and retain top talent, drive economic diversification, and lead the way in creating a new era for scientific research that benefits not just the region, but the world.
• Dr. Ubadah Sabbagh is an award-winning neuroscientist and bioengineer at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT. He is also the founder and CEO of Inara. X: @neubadah
