The crisis in the academic world

Author: Claus D. Volko

I successfully studied at Viennese universities and obtained degrees in medicine, medical informatics and computational intelligence until 2013. I then worked in the private sector as a software developer, but at the same time was part of the research group of Privatdozent Dr. Dr. Uwe Rohr in my spare time. After my fatherly friend and mentor passed away, I developed an idea for a new research program that could solve the urgent problem of antibiotic resistance. I tried to publish it in 2018, but it was rejected by all the scientific journals I sent it to. Once it was peer reviewed, the reviewers gave it a negative assessment because it was just an idea and didn't contain any experimental results. It would have been important for this idea to be disseminated, because antibiotic resistance really is a major problem that kills thousands of people every year.

I then published my paper on the Internet, where it still lives a shadowy existence today. Only a few colleagues came across it by chance. I received mostly positive feedback from them. The most positive feedback came from the people at the Syncritic Institute, a group of scientists with revolutionary ideas founded in Poland. This was because they also had difficulties publishing their ideas.

How can it be that groundbreaking findings are held back? Of course, it often happens that people write papers that are not fully thought through and are therefore rejected for good reason. But the problem is that even logically sound papers are often rejected. The founder of the Syncritic Institute, Krzysztof Zawisza, blames the low intelligence of scientists. Less intelligent researchers do not want to participate in the dissemination of new ideas. I find this view plausible and also believe that less intelligent researchers are not able to distinguish between nonsense and revolutionary but plausible ideas. That is why they reject anything that is somehow unusual.

In recent decades, there has been an explosion in the size of the scientific community. In Austria alone, the proportion of academics in the total population has increased tenfold since the 1950s. However, this has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in general intelligence. Consequently, the average intelligence level of academics today is lower than it was 70 years ago.

Intelligence tests are hardly ever used in the education system (at least in Austria); moreover, conventional tests are only suitable for people of average to slightly above-average intelligence to accurately measure intelligence. Zawisza says that, in his opinion, scientists should have an intelligence quotient of at least 175. In my view, this raises the question: what instruments does he want to use to measure such an aptitude? And how could it be enforced that only extremely intelligent people become scientists?

In medical school, a lot of emphasis was placed on detailed knowledge in examinations. In my opinion, this tended to put highly intelligent students at a disadvantage, because they generally study for understanding and are not prepared to delve into what they consider to be insignificant details to the extent required.

It was better when I was studying computer science: we regularly had to solve exercises in mathematics, algorithms and theoretical computer science, and intelligence definitely played a major role here.

However, there is a lack of transparency in the allocation of positions at universities and, at least as far as medicine is concerned, I have the impression that it is mainly party political and ideological criteria that matter.

At least it is now possible to publish one's ideas in journals published by high-intelligence associations. That's better than nothing.