Why am I doing science? As a scientist working at a research institute that focuses on food security, I’m acutely aware of the accelerating ecological and climatic breakdown that is occurring around us. What part should scientists play in such a fragile world?
Why the green-technology race might not save the planet
For many years, like most of my peers, I thought that science was part of the solution. More knowledge and innovation would allow societies to adapt to and mitigate environmental damage. That belief began to crack in 2018, when I discovered the work of Jean-Marc Jancovici, an energy and climate specialist.
His message is clear: our world is built on abundant energy, around 80% of which has come from fossil fuels over the past 50 years. Because supplies are limited, energy consumption will peak in decades — sooner if humans attempt to limit climate change. To keep global warming below 1.5 °C by 2100, the use of fossil fuels must fall by 5–8% each year — a pace that is too fast for low-carbon energy to keep up with. Restricted energy supplies will shrink economies and force people to make hard choices — whether to travel less, live in a smaller home or do more labour manually.
Scientific research is no exception. It is not an abstract intellectual pursuit but a resource-intensive collective activity that is made possible by abundant energy. Laboratories, instruments, collaborations, digital infrastructure and funding agencies all depend on energy, resources and political continuity. If these foundations erode, so will research activities. They will decline, evolving at best into more-local and less-instrument-intensive forms reminiscent of those a century ago. Put bluntly, the current model of scientific research will not endure.
Taking energy constraints seriously shifts the question from ‘how can science save us?’ to ‘what part can science play if it is destined to decline in the near future?’. This deeply unsettling question is mostly absent from discussions about the future of research. Instead, debates focus on secondary issues, such as decarbonizing laboratories, making research more ‘frugal’, or searching for game-changing innovations.
If research activity shrinks, what will be the greatest loss? For me, it will be humanity’s ability to understand what is happening. During a time of accelerating environmental disruption, science’s most valuable function is accurately describing the world, not producing ever-more-sophisticated technologies. Climate observations, ecosystem monitoring, epidemiological data and social indicators are the headlights in the fog. Without them, policymakers lack direction.
Beyond growth — why we need to agree on an alternative to GDP now
Research on Earth systems, sustainability and societal dynamics should remain a priority. Preserving long-term data sets, expertise and fragile observation networks in these areas is essential; if some nations withdraw from such projects, others must ensure their continuity.
The most uncomfortable part for me is that I no longer think that scientific research will resolve the crises that we face. Worse, I have come to think that it sometimes contributes to decision-making delays. As long as societies trust that researchers will eventually deliver a technological solution — a breakthrough energy source, scalable carbon-removal technology or climate-proof agriculture — it is easier to postpone systemic change. Science can unintentionally function as a reassurance mechanism.
This realization challenges the foundation on which many of us have built our careers. It took me time to articulate my main reasons to continue to do science.
