Slowing Down the Sciences
“Science needs time to think. Science needs time to read and time to fail.”
Such is the powerful proposition made by the Slow Science Manifesto, supported by the Slow Science Academy in Germany. Considering the state of sciences and academia in ASEAN today, it is a message that intellectuals here must heed.
The concept of “slow science” is sparking a lively debate in academia, particularly in Europe and other Western nations. Slow science aims to address a fundamental issue: How can we produce meaningful, quality science in today’s fast-paced academic environment?
Ironically, this movement – despite calling for a slowdown – has gained momentum because of the perceived problems in academia recently.
The pressure to publish more papers is what proponents of slow science are concerned about. The obsession with metrics – paper counts, citation scores and institutional rankings – turns research into mere accumulating numbers rather than about the true quality and impact of the work.
This critique is mainly reflected in the works of scholars like Christian Fuchs and Isabelle Stengers.
In many fields, particularly economics and medicine, the pressure to publish frequently has led to practices like “salami slicing”, where researchers break down a single, comprehensive study into smaller, less substantial papers simply to meet publication quotas.
Similarly, in engineering and psychology, the pressure to meet publication targets has contributed to the unethical practice of “p-hacking”, where researchers manipulate data analysis to achieve desired outcomes, thus undermining the integrity of scientific work.
This problem is not just a Western one; it is unquestionably relevant in developing economies, especially ASEAN, where academic pressures can be intense.
Scientists in ASEAN are pressured to meet artificial targets and work within rigid deadlines that prioritize output over substance. For instance, in Indonesia, the “publish or perish” culture demands a specific number of publications in high-impact journals for promotions and funding.
Similarly, in Malaysia, academics must meet rigid Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) tied to publication quotas, which often result in fragmented or less meaningful studies. In Thailand, graduate students are required to publish in indexed journals just to graduate, which leads to superficial work.
All of this phenomenon creates a dilemma: how can we produce truly impactful, interdisciplinary research when the conditions for such work—time, focus, and critical thinking—are in short supply solely to meet immediate institutional demands?
At its core, slow science calls on academicians to take a step back from rushing publications and examine their professional lives carefully. This is not just about a slower pace for the sake of it; it’s about creating space for deeper thinking and better science for all.
But how does slowing down help? If universities are too focused on trying to hit big numbers and rankings, it can compromise the depth and quality of research. When we focus too much on numbers, we forget what really matters—conducting research that helps people and makes a difference.
Publish or Perish?
When scientists discover something new, they share their findings in scientific journals so others can learn from them and make even more discoveries. This helps science move forward.
However, research papers can be retracted if there are issues concerning their accuracy or ethical standards. In fact, this issue has surged in recent years. In 2023 alone, over 10,000 papers were retracted globally, setting a new record.
Recent studies show that the pressure to quickly produce data and publish research has a detrimental effect on the quality of studies, leading to more papers being retracted. Plagiarism is the second most common cause, responsible for 16% of these retractions.
Fake peer reviews are also a big problem. Normally, experts review research papers and give helpful feedback, but in the last 10 years, these issues have become much more common – increasing 10 times – eroding the integrity of this essential process.
To make it worse, some companies sell fake research papers—about 2% of all research published in 2022 came from these companies.
More science papers are being retracted because the research was not conducted right. This underscores a worrying misuse of government spending on research or studies that are not relevant.
But it is not just about wasting money. Erroneous studies can mislead other scientists into spending time and resources on ideas that do not work. This can slow down progress, harm public trust and undermine the credibility of science. Therefore, there is an imperative to address these cracks in the system.
Nourishing Science
The slow science concept borrowed its rationale from the Slow Food movement that began in Italy in the 1980s. The idea behind it was simple: Fast food, while convenient, is often stripped of nutritional value and people would be healthier if they cooked nourishing meals made from fresh ingredients.
As a movement, Slow Food started with big ideas, though it has faced challenges against fast food corporations.
People who support slow science believe that the research process today is a bit like fast food—it is undertaken quickly, yet lacking the depth and quality.
This notion has been propagated by individuals like Dr. Joël Candau, an anthropologist from Université Nice-Sophia-Antipolis, who equates “fast science” to fast food—one that focuses on accomplishing a lot quickly instead of properly.
To truly embrace the idea of slow science, we need to think beyond just research practices and consider the mindset it calls for—a focus on slowing down and fully immersing in the process.
This approach resists the pressure to “publish or perish”, a pressure that often reduces research to a numbers game, turning science into a fast-food simulacrum that is produced for consumption rather than contemplation.
Just like slow food means taking time to make food tasty and healthy, slow science means scientists should take their time with research. In other words, conducting studies that are genuinely beneficial for humanity.
Concerns for ASEAN Countries
Ethical issues, plagiarism, the “shortcut” to professorship and poor welfare for academicians are some key challenges that stem from our obsession with fast-paced science. This is because, as mentioned above, universities are pressured to produce high output as quickly as possible, in large part to climb the global rankings and attract elusive research funding.
This system may produce more papers, but it often misses the true purpose of academic research—advancing knowledge in ways that benefit society. If Indonesia wishes to build an academic system that genuinely contributes to its development, it must start by valuing depth over speed. The government must invest in fostering an environment where scientists are encouraged to think critically and freely rather than just “producing on demand”.
The conversation about “slow science” is one that academic leaders and thinkers in Southeast Asia must start. Indeed, for Indonesia and many other ASEAN Member States (AMS), there is an urgent need to speed up higher education reforms to catch up with leading global institutions elsewhere, an imperative that cannot be ignored.
The push for modernization, funding and global recognition is real, and there is no question about the necessity of speeding up these processes. However, this swift pace must not come at the cost of quality and depth in research.
The hard part is getting things to balance. AMS have to rapidly transform the quality of their educational institutions to meet global standards. However, if these changes are solely focused on speed and quantity, they risk undermining the very essence of what science should be – thoughtful questioning, deep exploration, and significant discovery.
Thus, AMS must not only reform quickly but also create environments where researchers can work with the intellectual freedom and time needed to truly innovate, reflect, and contribute to societal development in ways that are sustainable as well as impactful in the long run.
Where to from Here?
So, what is the solution? The government, representing the general public interest, bears the greatest responsibility to address the externalities of fast-paced science.
One of the first steps in reforming our higher education system is to restore the autonomy of public research universities. By autonomy, we mean the ability of universities to function without undue external interference, especially from government bodies, political influences or commercial interests.
In practical terms, this autonomy allows universities to define their own academic, research and institutional priorities. This reform is pivotal, as it holds far-reaching implications—from securing stable funding to enabling researchers to pursue long-term goals that prospectively lead to groundbreaking discoveries.
At the same time, it is essential to streamline bureaucratic processes that often impede progress. Revising centralized policies and cutting down on unnecessary administrative barriers will create a significant change.
The new Minister and Deputy Minister of Higher Education of Indonesia, Satryo Brodjonegoro and Stella Christie, can take the lead by focusing on this reform. Once universities regain their autonomy, they will be able to function as dynamic knowledge hubs, addressing national challenges deliberatively.
Furthermore, universities, research institutions and funding agencies need to improve their due diligence and hold those responsible for misconduct accountable. These steps are crucial to ensure scientists can focus on their research without unnecessary distractions – creating an environment where they can approach their work with the care and attention it deserves.
Pioneering initiatives, such as the Max Planck Society in Germany and the Wellcome Trust in the United Kingdom, could serve as valuable benchmarks for ASEAN research ecosystems. These institutions exemplify the power of good governance, strategic funding and thoughtful institutional design, enabling researchers to pursue long-term goals without the pressure of immediate results. Ultimately, it is up to the scientists themselves to engage with society’s problems – in a different kind of academic atmosphere – one that is not defined by speed but by the quality of reason. Therefore, a slower, more thoughtful academia will enable real progress in solving our most pressing social challenges.
