Sabine Hossenfelder, a German theoretical physicist specializing in quantum gravity, has released a provocative video detailing the inner workings of “high” science. She discusses issues such as lies, forgeries, and the pursuit of money, suggesting that “discoveries” are often fabricated. The video has amassed over two million views and has elicited comments from numerous prominent scientists.
Some may say this is an exaggeration. However, the underlying message is that figures like Einstein might not succeed in today’s scientific climate. Innovations such as quantum mechanics might never have emerged. The implication is that true scientific discovery ceased around fifty years ago, and phrases like “scientists don’t know” or “the theory hasn’t been developed yet” signal that there may be no forthcoming answers.
Sabine, 47, hails from Frankfurt am Main and is a Goethe University Frankfurt alumna. Her career spans positions at the Institute for Heavy Ions in Darmstadt, the University of Arizona, the University of California, and the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo. Currently, she is part of the Institute for Advanced Problems in her native country. She holds memberships in both the German Physical Society and the American Physical Society. Her notable works include “Black Holes in Other Dimensions,” “The Appearance of Particles in Alternating Gravitational Fields,” and she is the author of the globally acclaimed “The Ugly Universe.”
Sabine was raised in a family of a teacher and an accountant, with a grandmother who worked at the post office. Described as “simple and normal people,” they did not employ tutors for her or overly involve themselves in her education, yet they instilled in her a strong work ethic. As a young girl, she gained practical experience working in a factory one summer, followed by a stint in a bank where she was tasked with sealing envelopes.
In school, she was passionate about physics and mathematics, yet she stood alone in her class, making Sabine feel like an outlier. She immersed herself in the biographies of renowned scientists, their breakthroughs, and their debates. She was certain that she would become a scientist and emulate them. “How naïve I was,” she reflects in the video.
“But it was the early 90s, there was no Internet yet, and I had no one to ask for advice. Now I would publish a post and get 2,000 pieces of advice, including two marriage proposals,” she notes humorously.
She was unacquainted with scientists. Upon hearing “Here comes the professor,” she envisioned a deity. The young woman effortlessly gained admission to the University of Frankfurt.
“It was a great time. We argued about physics, politics, philosophy, and, of course, alcohol,” she recalls.
The university is over, the diploma is red. What could go wrong?
Sabine had expected to be offered a job immediately, especially at her own university, given that she was the top student. However, that offer never came, and financial difficulties ensued.
As a prospective physicist, she resorted to selling her paintings, admitting, “I am not a good artist,” which led to her repeatedly asking her grandmother for financial help.
Ultimately, she made her way to an institute at her alma mater, where the head of the university spoke to her in unequivocal terms:
“I won’t hire you. You’re a woman. For you, women, there is a special program, a scholarship. It is paid by the state. Why should I pay your salary if the state will do it?”
Sabine applied for and received a scholarship, and began her work. However, lacking formal employment meant she was ineligible for health insurance, which is a significant challenge in Germany, and she did not accrue pension benefits. Additionally, her manager frequently reminded her that she was not considered an actual employee.
Sabine expresses frustration towards “programs for women,” stating they suggest women are different, flawed, and require special conditions, which she believes is not the case.
She was ejected from the office
“The institute’s head made a substantial income from publishing textbooks, which he did not author. Undergraduate and graduate students support him, resulting in our textbooks being basic and rudimentary,” Sabine states.
Sabine, having declined an offer to be subjugated, was promptly summoned for a reprimand. The leader, starting to shout from the entrance, proclaimed:
“We are not only sparing you out of mercy, but you are also flaunting your arrogance.” “This is the final time I will ask: will you commit to writing textbooks or not?”
Sabine declined, and the manager, yelling “you’re fired,” seized her shoulders, spun her around, and pushed her out of the office.
However, he had no authority to dismiss her. He hadn’t hired her; the state paid her salary. Only the university’s dean had the power to cancel her scholarship. The institute’s head, fearing repercussions, remained silent about his misconduct and thus, hesitated to report Sabine to the dean.
“I thought it was a monster. But then I realized that it wasn’t about him, and not about a particular institute. It’s the same everywhere,” says Sabine.
As time went by, the young rebel’s defiance was tamed. Sabina mentions that she started to conform to the rules, which are as follows:
“People don’t consider scientific discoveries or the pursuit of knowledge. They’re only focused on money,” she states.
When a young scientist is awarded a grant, a portion, ranging from 15 to 50 percent, is allocated to ‘overhead’—a term that’s rather ambiguous. In reality, this money ends up in the manager’s pocket, amounting to tens of millions of dollars. Considering the substantial size of these grants and the numerous individuals involved, it’s a significant sum.
Consequently, managers compel young individuals to pursue grants by binding them to temporary contracts with dismal pay.
The institute’s leader gains not only financial benefits but also acclaim. In publications detailing grant outcomes, the supervisor’s name often precedes, while the contributor’s may appear last or not at all.
Another subtlety exists. Securing a grant requires selecting a topic that is impactful yet does not compromise the core principles of physics. The research should be brief, allowing for quicker availability for subsequent grants. This often leads to proclaimed “discoveries.” And if a discovery is not made? Falsification isn’t deemed wrong since oversight is rare. Perpetual dishonesty becomes the norm.
“Nuclear physics is accused of inventing non-existent particles. I decided to open a discussion on this topic, as it represents a destructive path for science. I assumed many would want to voice their opinions, yet there were no participants. “Scientists are solely motivated by money,” Sabina claims, “Academic science has become a factory for waste paper.”
Sabine mastered the art of securing the right grants and conducting the expected research.
“I adhered to the rules, fulfilled the tasks, satisfied the grant requirements, and was duly compensated. Yet, I discerned it all as folly, comparable to a significant portion of modern research. It rendered me feeling terrible, in both body and mind. Astonishingly, at the age of 35, I succeeded in getting married and having two children, despite living a life caught in an endless cycle, transitioning from one grant to another with no respite,” she confesses frankly.
“Exit? There is no way out,” she concludes, and the video is aptly titled. My aspiration was to conduct a ‘real’ study on quantum gravity, to challenge foundational concepts and arrive at profound, yet substantiated, conclusions. Yet, for years, no one has been willing to fund such research, especially after the release of such a video.
Beneath Sabine’s video lies a sea of comments, many anonymous. However, Derek Mueller of Australia stands openly. Known in the realm of popular science as Veritassium, he transitioned from a serious scientist to a blogger, like Sabine, aiming to contribute to society.
“Upon completing my PhD, the advice was simple: “seek funding.” Is that the sole purpose? Witnessing the brightest minds, who have exerted immense effort to earn their scientific doctorates, reduced to mere fundraisers was profoundly disheartening,” she expressed.
It is quite possible that Sabine Hossenfelder made such a statement to generate hype, which is a common strategy for a blogger. However, how does this differ from the scientists she criticizes, who seek out research topics that are likely to attract attention?
