Topic: Science
For generations, science has advanced through a tension between caution and ambition. On one hand, the scientific method depends on skepticism, replication, and evidence. On the other hand, history’s greatest discoveries often began as improbable ideas pursued by researchers willing to solve the world’s biggest problems. Modern science has given us the ability to edit our genes, life-saving vaccines, and a glimpse at the origins of the universe. But is the system that produced these breakthroughs holding itself back?
Critics argue that the pressure to publish — and the incentive structures around citation, peer review, and career advancement — rewards safe, incremental work over bold thinking and big swings, with competition for funding reinforcing those same tendencies. Yet others see a system still capable of paradigm-shifting discoveries — one where large, worldwide collaborations and long-term thinking motivate scientists to pursue grand, ambitious ideas. They argue that careful review and rigorous standards are not barriers to innovation, but the very conditions that make reliable breakthroughs possible.
With this background, we debate the question: Is the Scientific Enterprise Too Risk-Averse?
ARGUING YES:
Tyler Cowen: Author of "The Great Stagnation"; Economics Professor at George Mason University; Founder of Emergent Ventures; Host of "Conversations with Tyler" podcast
Brandon Ogbunu: Computational Biologist; Associate Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Yale University; Professor at the Santa Fe Institute
ARGUING NO:
Kate Biberdorf (“Kate the Chemist”): Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at the University of Notre Dame; Science Entertainer
The Honorable Sethuraman Panchanathan: 15th Director of the National Science Foundation; University Professor of Technology and Innovation and Foundation Chair at Arizona State University
MODERATOR-IN-CHIEF:
John Donvan: Emmy award-winning journalist
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
The Hopkins Forum is a partnership between Open to Debate and Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. This flagship series consists of live debates in Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, bringing together diverse perspectives to tackle today’s most pressing issues.






Yale guy sounds like sour grapes. Not a good debater. He picked John Jumper example but conveniently forgot David Baker who shared Nobel prize. Nobody touched burden of knowledge argument. AI as an enabler of scientific innovation is not covered at all.
I was very disappointed in the lack of difference between both sides. I felt like neither side was calling for ANY risk-adversion at all. Both sides seemed to be cheering on science full speed ahead! No one was considering the flood of chemicals, plastics, PFAS, pesticides, herbicides, preservatives, artifical ingredients, greenhouse gasses, data centers, AI agents, and so many other negative consequences of science in an unrestrained capitalist system. It was all science is all good, and that's just not true! Nuclear warheads are made by science, and they're not good! We need to advert the risk of nuclear warfare, right?!?!