I know science can’t fix the world — here’s why I do it anyway
Summary
Jean Colcombet argues that the era of abundant, cheap energy that has supported modern, resource-intensive science is ending. As fossil-fuel supplies shrink and societies move to cut emissions, research as we know it — large, instrument-heavy, globally networked — will face severe constraints. The author says science’s greatest value in that constrained future is accurate observation and long-term monitoring of climate, ecosystems and societal trends, rather than ever-more-sophisticated technological fixes. He also warns that faith in a future scientific rescue can create a reassurance effect that delays necessary societal change.
Key Points
- Modern science depends on abundant energy and complex infrastructure; energy decline will force research to become more local and less instrument-intensive.
- To meet 1.5 °C targets, fossil-fuel use must fall rapidly, a pace that low-carbon energy sources are unlikely to match in the short term.
- Restricted energy supplies will shrink economies and force hard trade-offs that affect research priorities and logistics.
- Preserving long-term observations, climate and ecosystem monitoring, and data continuity should be prioritised over chasing technological panaceas.
- Science can inadvertently delay systemic change by serving as a promise of future solutions; recognising this is crucial for honest policymaking.
- Research communities should plan now for continuity of essential monitoring and expertise, and for a shift to frugal, local, and observation-focused science.
Content summary
Colcombet begins by describing how his long-held belief that science would help solve environmental crises began to erode after reading analyses showing our civilisation has relied on extremely abundant fossil energy. He draws on energy-modelling literature and the work of Jean-Marc Jancovici to explain why global energy supplies are likely to peak and tighten as we phase out fossil fuels to meet climate goals. That tightening will not spare research: laboratories, instruments, travel, and digital infrastructure all demand energy and stable funding.
The essay shifts the question from ‘can science save us?’ to ‘what role can science play as it declines?’. Colcombet suggests the highest-value activities will be observation, monitoring and maintaining long-term data sets that guide policy during disruption. He cautions that overreliance on a hoped-for technological fix can delay the systemic changes society needs now. The piece concludes by arguing for prioritising research that documents and explains change, and for international cooperation to preserve critical monitoring networks.
Context and relevance
This opinion piece speaks directly to researchers, research managers and policymakers. It reframes debates about decarbonising labs and making research ‘frugal’ by placing them in the larger context of global energy constraints. For anyone involved in planning research strategy, funding, data stewardship or infrastructure, Colcombet’s view is a prompt to reassess priorities: protect observation systems, keep long-term datasets intact, and prepare for more-localised science. The argument also intersects with broader discussions about degrowth, resilience and how societies allocate scarce energy resources.
Author style
Punchy: Colcombet is direct and uncompromising. He turns a familiar defence of science on its head and forces the reader to confront uncomfortable trade-offs. If you’re in the research ecosystem, this is a nudge — maybe a shove — to rethink what work truly matters.
Why should I read this?
Short version: if you care about the future of research, your funding, or whether the data that policymakers rely on survives a bumpy energy transition, this is worth five minutes. It’s not just doom-saying — it’s a practical wake-up call to protect the things science actually does best: observe, measure and explain. Read it so you know what to defend and what to let go of.