Is free scientific debate possible in the Arab world? – Emad Abdul Latif

The circumstances of the Corona pandemic have placed scientific research at the forefront of public interest around the world. As human eyes in most of the world are focused on the efforts made by researchers and scientists to help humanity defeat disease and restore normal life. In the Arab world, some scientific institutions have announced research activities aimed at achieving a cure or vaccination against the disease. Despite the great efforts these institutions can undertake, I think that most Arab peoples have little faith in the ability to achieve this, to the point of despair over the possibility that these institutions have access to a cure or vaccination for the disease.
Indeed, the community’s lack of trust in these institutions is justified, due to factors such as weak funding, administrative corruption, weak connection with society or weak scientific freedoms and others. But there are other reasons that are no less important than the above; Relating to the scientific training of the researchers themselves and the general climate for research practice in our scientific institutions. In this article, I discuss a factor affecting the weakness of Arab scientific institutions. It is the absence of a healthy environment for scientific debate.
***
The great mass of scientific knowledge takes the form of hypotheses, theories, claims, suggestions and structures of analysis. Few of this knowledge takes the form of axioms, facts and principles that are not subject to criticism and refutations. This means that most scientific knowledge contains hypotheses and counter-hypotheses, conflicting theories, different claims, different analysis frameworks and various methodologies. Knowledge is strengthened through critique, scrutiny, examination and review. Therefore, distinguished researchers always strive to stimulate their colleagues to revise what they write and radically criticize it, in order to reveal the weaknesses, gaps, shortcomings and contradictions of their research. Through mutual criticism among researchers, knowledge is strengthened, strengthened, improved and more coherent and effective, and therefore better able to serve society. When the processes of review, criticism, examination and scrutiny are not possible, scientific research loses the ability to improve and develop and is overwhelmed by weakness and fragility. This is indeed one of the dilemmas of scientific research in the Arab world and one of the main causes of societies’ weak faith in it.
Most Arab scientific institutions suffer from restrictions on the freedom of mutual criticism among researchers. Even in informal settings, researchers rarely practice freely reviewing the work of their colleagues, with the aim of improving and perfecting them. Indeed, most Arab scientific institutions lack a healthy climate that allows free scientific debate. On the other hand, there are prevailing anti-values ​​in the freedom of exchange between researchers, this necessary practice almost turns into a risky and expensive job. When Arab researchers present scientific reviews to their peers, they run the risk of provoking their enmity and may be exposed to negative reactions, which amount to revenge. This article is an attempt to explain this phenomenon, which in my opinion has three causes.
1. Confusion between science and faith
Science is not a dogma. Knowledge is assumptions, statements, theories and points of view that can be exchanged, modified and transgressed. Any knowledge that is claimed not to be subject to error, criticism, development or modification is not a science. But the centuries-old association of science and belief in the Arab world still influences how we perceive it. Researchers treat theories, hypotheses and points of view as certainty. And you see them defending a scientific theory or concept in a desperate defense, rejecting any criticism as if it were their religion. Although this is not the case at all. It is natural for researchers to constantly improve their perceptions and references. Knowledge is constantly renewed. And what seems right today may turn out to be wrong tomorrow. And the seeker’s goal is the truth. The facts of science change and evolve constantly. Anyone who doesn’t notice is like a chicken lying on hard-boiled eggs, according to the famous analogy.
The Arab world is crowded with those who think that knowledge is belief and, once a person is convinced of it, at some point, he clings to them to death. So they fight all criticism and resist all that is new. The dangers of confusing science and belief are increasing, as this segment of the enemies of criticism is often among those in charge of business. Those who cling to their old acquaintances are usually senior researchers who have stopped following new developments in their specializations, then go back to the new generations who adopt different perceptions for them. And because they hold extensive scientific powers (such as scientific oversight, promotions, grants, missions, etc.), they are able to disrupt the critical movement needed for renewal and force new researchers to swallow their tongue up to a little.
2. Nervousness
Arabs have always said that “a difference of opinion does not spoil friendship”. If this principle is true of the difference in the affairs of life, it is true a thousandfold of the differences in the affairs of science. But not everything people say believe it. Wherever the Arab researcher strays, he will see that the difference in scientific opinion ruins the friendliness of a thousand cases. Researchers are intolerant of their opinion and think that any criticism of their idea, proposal or theory is an attack on their personality. They do not tolerate or accept criticism, let alone encourage others to do so. This personal sensitivity to criticism leads some researchers to pretend to be convinced and avoid presenting honest scientific reviews of the work of others, while others resort to doing the opposite act of expressing opinions contrary to what they see, in a form of hypocrisy usually motivated by fear of potential harm or an advantage gained from hidden or open hypocrisy. The result is the destruction of the possibility of honest and sincere review and the exaltation of evil deeds as long as their owners possess the power of oppression or giving and neglect the great works emanating from other people.
3. Fragility
Hate for criticism is closely linked to fragility. The more the researcher has confidence in himself and in his work, the more he will accept criticism from others. Conversely, low-skill researchers are provoked by the slightest criticism. Usually the fragility of their work prompts them to produce fierce and aggressive responses to any disagreement with them or criticism of them.
The fragility of these researchers creates an atmosphere of unease in Arab scientific institutions. They prevent the revision and criticism necessary for the development of science. Criticism of their work makes them terribly exposed, so they try to prevent the process of criticism and review itself, and often wage dirty wars to achieve this. And since Arab scientific institutions themselves do not place competence as a prerequisite for obtaining or continuing academic work, the number of these researchers is enormous almost everywhere. They are the main obstacle to any future of scientific research.
And when we stop treating science as belief, and from mixing scientific review with the attacking personality, and resist the foray of weak researchers into our scientific institutions, only then does Arab societies ‘confidence in their scientific institutions’ ability to meet challenges series such as the Corona virus can be enhanced.