Momma says science is as science does

Social media is an interesting platform to say the least (I know, that's the understatement of the year). On the one hand, it provides a universal "digital town hall," where anyone's voice can be heard. A great equalizer. On the other hand … anyone's voice can be heard. This has led to toxic behavior and some of the worst aspects of human nature, along with plenty of memes. That being said, wading through some of the distractions, there is some worthwhile discourse that can arise, even from petty argumentative posts. Recently, two prominent influencers on X.com (who shall remain nameless) had a little spat about their contributions to science—one was a tech guru who asserted science lies in the development of practical technology, while the other was one of the founding fathers of AI, an academic who asserted Science (with a capital S) necessitates formal publication, i.e., a contribution to the knowledge base of the academic populi. Now, this is a gross simplification, and I am skipping over some key points. To be fair, the AI researcher's argument had much more depth than simply "science is publications," but it is what most antagonists took as the main thesis. It also goes without saying that either individual's perspective is simply a "hot take"—I would question the authoritativeness of (1) a billionaire without formal academic training (albeit in the tech space) as well as (2) a single established academic (but one who's field didn't even exist mere decades ago) on their definition of "science." More interesting to me, it sparked some entertaining and thought-provoking side discussions on what exactly is modern "science." As an academic editor who runs a journal, it would be convenient to support the assertion that modern science is defined by the publications (across all types, from traditional research articles to patents to GitHub repositories). The truth is a little more complex. Science clearly predates publications and will continue to flourish beyond the modern system of academic publishing (whenever our dated system inevitably evolves). That's because science is an act, not an output. A process. Science can be thought of as the systematic acquiring, creating, and sharing knowledge. Anyone who participates in such endeavors—from academic labs to tech start-ups to K–12 classrooms to lounge-chair philosophers—can claim to be a scientist. Now, in a more formal sense, we (as researchers and academics) have somewhat self-defined the field of Science, with a capital "S." People like to classify professions and attribute qualifications and credentials. One can be an "actor" in a local theatrical production, but you are not an Actor in a professional sense unless you have some bona fide credentials. This evolution of self-organization and governance—which can be seen in other professions and trades—has led to modern academia, with all its benefits and flaws. Need for dissemination led to journals, need for trustworthiness led to peer review, journal growth led to "publish or perish" mentalities, etc. Over the course of a few decades, the success of a scientist was measured in citations and number of papers. Papers and publications have only evolved to represent "science" because of this current academic culture. It is akin to the classical allegory of Plato's cave: Plato describes people that have spent their lives chained in a cave facing a blank wall. They watch shadows projected onto the wall by objects passing in front of a fire behind them, and they give names to these shadows. The shadows are the prisoners' reality but not accurate representations of the real world. Similarly, researchers have grown accustomed to digesting science via papers; we don't visit other labs to see their work in real-time. The papers have become the science; we associated new findings with a publication, not a lab. Papers have been the manifestation of science over such a sufficient period of time that they have become the standard. In effect, like shadows on the cave reflecting reality, publications have become science. [Sidenote: The real epistemological conundrum for the lounge-chair philosopher is "does the distinction even matter"?] Published pieces are just a reflection of science: remove them from the equation and science would still exist. At the same time, it doesn't mean the papers have no value. They establish credibility and serve to link science together. It's like a university degree—the actual degree is just a piece of paper, but it reflects and certifies attained education. Of course, my perspective is from an academic point of view. One could easily take the more "practical" side of technology … science is reflected in the progression of technology, consumer goods, gadgets, industrial outputs, and societal solutions. It's not the papers, it's the products! It's simply the same allegory, different shadows. Just as "art" is not limited to paintings and sculpture, science is not limited to publications and technology. Science manifests itself in different ways; there can be many projections in Plato's cave, and we all can learn from the same fundamental reality. Sometimes we just get stuck staring at our own wall too long. Every journal can be considered a wall in which science gets projected. Matter is one of many, and sometimes it is beneficial to consider our role. More pertinent, consider this month's issue, which is our fourth annual researcher's choice issue. Once a year, the Matter editorial team turns editorial control to the materials science community to highlight the works that they think are deserving. Containing no original research articles, this year's special issue contains over 60 distinct previews highlighting research groups across over 20 distinct journals in materials science. We invited authors to highlight recent materials science works that they found interesting in the past 6 to 12 months or so—a work that inspired, piqued their interest, or motivated a new research direction—across any level of impact, any journal, from any author/group/lab in the world. Our aim is for this collection of previews to provide a unique snapshot of contemporary materials science without our own bias for what was submitted and published within Matter and across Cell Press. Shadows on the allegorical cave of materials science. Indeed, the articles here reflect materials science across multiple journals and clearly aid in disseminating research … yet are not research articles. This also begs the question, do these previews in qualify as "science"? Backtracking to our analogy of Plato's cave, we can imagine our issue reflects a deeper section of a cave with another wall of shadows, i.e. a projection of a projection of the field, shadows cast by shadows (how meta!). If something can be learned from that projection, does it matter how many times it's been sliced, diced, repacked, or rebooted? Imagine the depths of Plato's cavern! It could be turtles all the way down man, it's still science. Science (capitalized or not) is not the product; it is the action of amassing and sharing knowledge. The fictional character, Forrest Gump, shared his momma's wisdom with the idiom "stupid is as stupid does." The meaning is quite profound: people are not stupid, but it is their behavior that makes them so. Stupidity is an action, not a character trait. Anyone can act stupid. We can ironically compare this perspective of stupidity to science. Science is not simply an outcome nor a research paper nor a technological widget. Science is the process, from patents to previews, research papers to product releases, neither gatekept by academics nor wielded solely by tech entrepreneurs. Anyone can contribute to science. Science is as science does.