
“What truly bound all Romans together…were unspoken rules of social and political conduct. The Romans never had a written constitution or extensive body of written law—they needed neither. Instead the Romans surrounded themselves with unwritten rules, traditions, and mutual expectations collectively known as mos maiorum, which meant ‘The way of the elders.’ … When the Republic began to break down in the late second century it was not the letter of Roman law that eroded, but respect for the mutually accepted bonds of mos maiorum.”
- The Storm Before the Storm, Mike Duncan
Science, much like ancient Rome, is built on customs: customs of trust, debate, and verification. Yes, there have always been differences in belief—the debate over whether ulcers could be caused by bacteria, for instance—but the shared commitment has always been to seek truth through proof. Challenge and scrutiny are essential parts of the trust process.
Yet, across the globe, the winds of fascism are blowing, shrouding science in a smog of doubt. Science, once a beacon of trust, now faces unprecedented threats.
This scientific pollution runs deeper than individual actions. It’s about using the systems of science to uphold that trust. Peer review, once a cornerstone of checks and balances, has been stretched and, at times, compromised. Peer review isn't the only safeguard we have, but it's a critical one.
The customs of trust are under siege, attacked by individuals, organizations, and even governments. These traditions must be named, defined, and upheld because undermining science is tantamount to undermining democracy. There are forces at work not to improve the world, but to control minds and narratives. I refuse to sit by and watch that happen.
A few years ago, I worried that what happened to journalism might happen to science—a breakdown of trust. That fear has since evolved into action—action to ensure that science doesn't fall into the same abyss.
This erosion has given rise to a new discipline: Forensic Scientometrics. At its core is the trust that the person submitting research is, in fact, a researcher. That their work has the necessary ethical approvals. That scientific debates are conducted with respect—challenging ideas, not individuals.
Forensic Scientometrics brings together people, ideas, and tools to create the future we want—not the one dictated to us.
What one action are you are taking to uphold trust in science?

I’m voting to support trust in science and in our democracy.