The Bridge is Falling Down

Science, at its core, is the label of immortal human inquiry that seeks paths to understand the reality of self, morals, human connectivity, the existence of all living and non-living objects, and that which is beyond the limits of the far-flung universe. It is not just a set of tools and inventions; it is a way of thinking, a way of going from doubt to certainty, from dormancy to dynamism. That is why wherever there is science, there is freedom of thought, evidence-based decision-making, and a constant evolution of life. However, this consciousness has not yet become ingrained in Pakistani society, where knowledge is constrained behind the barriers of tradition, education is limited to rote learning, and research is under-resourced and underprioritized. Consequently, science has become a mere curricular activity and not a driving force that discerns truths of existence.

This is no longer a general grievance but a reality in Pakistan: the system of basic research is precarious. A lot of the research that takes place in our universities is not related to real scientific problems: research that does not contribute to the science itself or to industry, not to the economy or not to solving real socio-economic problems. As a result, over the last 20 years, the number of publications has risen steadily and steeply, but their quality and impact have been negligible and unnoticed due to the directionless approach, race for publications, creation of baseless data without integrity, and intellectual pursuit and inquiry. Reality discovers that genuine research has drowned somewhere under the tidal wave of ‘academic noise.’

During the early 2000s, under the leadership of Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman—first as Federal Minister for Science and Technology and later as Chairman of the Higher Education Commission—Pakistan witnessed a major policy shift in higher education. Under ambitious scholarship programs, thousands of scholars were sent abroad for doctoral studies to build up the country’s research capacity.

At an individual level, returning scholars were granted financial assistance to set up laboratories to pursue and continue the work owing to the knowledge acquired abroad. Unfortunately, at the institutional level, little was done to address structural reforms. The governance, research culture, administrative flexibility, and infrastructure requirements for meaningful scientific work within universities remained largely unchanged and stagnant. Yet, the number of publications climbed mountains with ease, partly due to the introduction of unusual and intriguing incentive mechanisms such as productivity allowances, promotions, and career advancements. Consequently, an apparent rise in superficial research papers could be observed that proved of no use to real scientific advancement.

Under these initiatives, a highly educated class of scholars was, to a large degree, underutilized. Virtually none was able to repeat the sophisticated research they had seen in other countries because the institutional environment in Pakistan was not conducive to high-quality experimental research, not because they were not competent.

Many of the authorities that run higher education systems seem incapable—or unwilling—to grasp the basic structural issues of universities or to establish the practical conditions for the flourishing of research. The challenge has never been simply sending people overseas for training; it has always been creating institutions that can absorb and sustain that training. To achieve any meaningful reforms in Pakistan, it is important to realize that scientific advancement cannot be achieved through short-term policies or temporary initiatives. From the Industrial Revolution of the twentieth century, the advancement of ‘Western science’ (!) was the direct consequence of sustained and perpetual investment in fundamental research, institutional stability, and intellectual freedom. However, in Pakistan, research is limited to degree requirements, promotion, and bureaucratic exercises, rather than being a living intellectual activity.

Subsequently, a rudimentary error in our policy-making was the perception that we forcefully propel institutions to amass significant outcomes of applied research while being utterly unwilling to finance the fundamental research that intrinsically grants applied research a tangible existence. It is believed that policymakers, along with numerous researchers and educationists who ally with them, neither understand the process nor are historically aware of the magnitude that the fusion of research and policy beholds. The stark truth is that the discoveries of Isaac Newton, Marie Curie, James Clerk Maxwell, Rosalind Franklin, and many more to name were formulated owing to intoxication of pure intellectual curiosity in fundamental research, but their discoveries eventually revolutionized the industrial and scientific paradigms of the modern world.

Intellectually, there is profound emptiness. Karl Popper, in his legendary and one of the most influential 20th-century contributions, “Logic of Scientific Discovery,” states that science is founded on falsifiable hypotheses, meaning that a theory is scientific only if there is a possible observation or experiment that could prove it to be incorrect, but most of our research is not clearly defined nor rigorously or critically tested. Likewise, Thomas Kuhn claimed that scientific advances happen when there are paradigm shifts, and that means a place where there is a lot of intellectual discussion, which does not typically find its place in our system. The concept of “research programs” of Imre Lakatos is also almost completely absent, because research is still individualistic and fragmented without any coherent intellectual frameworks.

In addition to these problems, there has been a disturbing trend of uncritical celebration of rankings. The listing of Stanford University’s “Top 2% Scientists” and other lists are frequently touted as great accomplishments. In fact, these rankings are not officially endorsed by Stanford itself and are based on bibliometric indicators such as citations, including self-citations; h-index; and publication counts, which are not necessarily representative of the actual impact of scientific work.

Many great scientists, including Albert Einstein and Paul Dirac, have gained their importance through their revolutionary theories rather than the number of publications. In terms of today’s standards, they may not even be in the top of such rankings and metrics. Many great scientists are not included in or even listed on these lists today. This is a clear indication that scientific greatness is not confined or bound by numerical values.

This is an even more serious problem in Pakistan as the Higher Education Commission and universities display such rankings as evidence of their performance, whereas research has boiled down to numbers with questions of a fundamental nature, like the production of new knowledge, problem-solving, and intellectual innovation being pushed aside. The citation-based system establishes a vicious circle: certain groups cite each other to make themselves more important, and originality and depth are neglected.

All this suggests that the issue is not simply one of resources or infrastructure, but one of intellectual direction. The first question to ask in the process of reforms is, “What is research?” Students and researchers need to be taught: how to ask questions that are meaningful and have impact; how to organize literature systematically, not just gather it, but to organize it in a coherent manner, usually by author index or subject index; how to critically interact with literature through sustained and continuous study; and how to develop scientific dialogue—testing questions through critical evaluation and experimentation.

Furthermore, there should be comprehensive structural changes in the process of policymaking, such as focusing on quality and impact rather than quantity of publications; developing long-term coherent research programs; fostering genuine linkages between universities, industry, and the state; and organizing and providing an iron-clad wall to researchers and institutions to bring about a zenith in the vast field of science and technology.

The truth is that rankings and investments will not take us forward until we take research seriously as an intellectual pursuit. The only way to scientific progress is through intellectual integrity, critical thinking, and the courage to ask questions.

Summary

The article describes that Pakistan’s problem is not limited to technical shortcomings; rather, it is a deeply ingrained intellectual crisis. It emphasizes how science has been limited to memorization and publication-driven work with minimal originality or social consequence.

It criticizes the research culture in universities for prioritizing quantity over quality and relying heavily on citation-based rankings, which distort the true purpose of science. Using ideas from Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos, it emphasizes that real scientific progress depends on critical thinking, falsifiable ideas, and coherent research programs.

The article concludes that Pakistan’s main challenge is a lack of intellectual direction, and calls for reforms focused on genuine inquiry, long-term research planning, and stronger links between academia, industry, and society.