Though this fine text was originally published by Bernard K. Forscher in the year 1963, it was slightly and conveniently modified by the author in order to bring its contents up to the year 2025. The reader will notice that very little has changed in the last 62 years, and, if anything, things have gotten considerably worse.

Once upon a time, among the activities and occupations of man there was an activity called scientific research and the performers of this activity were called scientists. In reality, however, these highly educated and dedicated men and women were builders who constructed edifices, called explanations or laws, by assembling bricks, called facts.

When the bricks were sound and assembled properly, the edifice was useful and durable, and brought pleasure and sometimes reward to the builder. But if the bricks were faulty or if they were poorly assembled, the edifice lacked substance and would crumble. This kind of disaster could be very dangerous to innocent users of the edifice as well as to the builder who sometimes was destroyed by the catastrophic collapse.

Because the intrinsic quality of each individual brick was so important to the success of the edifice, and because bricks were so scarce in those days, the builders started to make their own bricks. The making of bricks was a difficult and expensive undertaking and the wise builder avoided waste by making only bricks of the shape and size necessary for the enterprise at hand. The builder was guided in this brick manufacturing process by a unique blueprint, called a hypothesis or a theory. 

It came to pass that builders realized they were sorely hampered in their construction efforts by delays in obtaining bricks. Thus, there arose a new skilled trade known as brickmaking. These new brickmakers were called junior scientists in order to give the artisan proper pride in his work. 

This new and convenient arrangement was very efficient and the construction of edifices proceeded with great vigor. In fact, sometimes some of the brickmakers became inspired and eventually progressed to the status of builders. In spite of the separation of duties, bricks still were made with care and usually were produced only on order. 

Now and then an enterprising brickmaker was able to foresee a demand and would prepare a stock of bricks ahead of time, but, in general, brickmaking was done on a custom basis because it still was a difficult, expensive, and time-consuming process.

And then it came to pass that a misunderstanding spread among the brickmakers. There are some who say this misunderstanding developed as a result of careless training and greed of a new generation of brickmakers. In this way, a new generation of mediocre brickmakers became obsessed with making bricks.

When reminded that the ultimate goal was to construct solid and well-built edifices, and not only a massive quantity of bricks, their reply was that if enough bricks were made available, the builders would be able to select what was necessary and still construct edifices. 

Needless to say, the fundamental flaws in this failed argument were not readily apparent. And so, with the help of the citizens who were waiting to use the edifices yet to be built, amazing things started to happen.

The monetary expense of brickmaking became a minor factor because large sums of money were made available. Simultaneously, the time and effort involved in the brickmaking process was significantly reduced by ingenious and easy to use computerized-automatic equipment, now known as Chat GPT and similar plagiarizing, time-saving, and immoral devises and practices.

The ranks of the new brickmakers were swelled by augmented fast-track training programs and intensive recruitment. It even was suggested that the production of a suitable number of bricks was equivalent to building an edifice and therefore should entitle the industrious brickmaker to assume the title of builder and, with the title, came the implicit rank and authority.

And so it happened that the land eventually became flooded with massive amounts of low-quality bricks and flimsy edifices which lacked a solid conceptual, structural, and systemic base. Furthermore, it became necessary to create and organize more and more storage places, called scientific journals. Also, more and more elaborate systems of computerized book keeping had to be created and implemented in order to record and keep track of the quickly growing inventory. 

In spite of this, some of the true brickmakers were able to retain their pride and skill, mainly because their bricks remained of the very best quality.

However, and as often happens in this human-mind driven life, production began to run ahead of demand and the former highly selective and high-quality bricks no longer were made to order. Their original size, shape, texture, and positioning was now almost exclusively dictated by changing trends in fashion and the need to expand the largely superficial and insubstantial content of a curriculum vitae.

Because of such, and in order to compete successfully with other brickmakers, brick production emphasized those types of bricks that were quick and easy to make, and only very rarely did an adventuresome brickmaker attempt a thorough, difficult, unusual, honest, and well-conceived design. The final result was that in such a mediocrity-driven process, the influence of high volume and low-quality production methods became the central driving force and dominating tendency.

Unfortunately, the edifice builders were almost destroyed. It became progressively more difficult to find proper high-quality bricks for a specific task because one had to scramble and hunt among piles low-quality components. In fact, it became difficult to find a suitable area for the construction of an edifice because the ground was covered with loose bricks that simply came apart on their own.

Because of such, it became difficult – if not impossible - to complete a solid and useful edifice. Mainly because as soon as the basic structural and systematic foundations were discernible, everything and everyone was buried under an avalanche of cheap, poor quality, and quick-fix serially produced bricks. 

And, the saddest thing of all, was that most often absolutely no effort whatsoever was made even to maintain the true and discerning distinction between a pile of cheap and ill-made bricks and the glory of a true edifice.

The extraordinary message conveyed in the wise words of Bernard Forscher, that you have just read, is metaphorical, of course. But nonetheless they point towards a solid truth in the real world. In fact, a truth that requires immediate attention before it gets totally out of hand: the substitution of original depth and quality for current superficiality and volume. Otherwise, and also in a metaphorical sense, we are headed for a devastating “scientific shipwreck.”

A “bona fide” (genuine or real) university professor´s main and primary goal is to teach his students to develop a critical mindset relative to the massive and overwhelming volume of knowledge that floods the scientific literature on a daily basis. It is the professor´s task to assist the graduate or postgraduate student in the selection of formative and informative scientific material, as well as being capable of organizing its contents in an intelligent, practical, and coherent manner. 

The ultimate goal is to educate and develop an intellectually independent and fully functioning scientist who is able to contribute positively to the advancement of truth and science in the world.

Because of such, the scientist's task should be oriented toward the search for truth via careful analysis of the pertinent facts, as well as adhering to the guidelines and rules of honest and high-quality scientific research. All, in order to achieve the most precise and accurate interpretation of nature possible.

Every medical doctor or research scientist working in the health sciences must, above all, be in possession of a clear and in-depth understanding of biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology. Biology is briefly be defined as the science that studies life; In other words, the science of life and the fundamental laws that govern it. Throughout the entire scientific process, the term knowledge is synonymous with truth.

In the current state of events, something has gone wrong, in fact very wrong. We say this because bona fide scientific knowledge seems to be growing exponentially. Such knowledge, nonetheless, seems to be drowning in a flood of scientific research publications, many of which are highly questionable in concept, methods, and interpretations. They are also of questionable worth to the serious scientific community. 

However, such publications, massively produced and compiled withing the contents of an individual´s curriculum vitae, are often and conveniently regarded as the main academic reference criteria for determining a student´s or professor´s rank, status, and prestige within the academic community. 

The title "chaos in the brickyard," which heads this brief article, refers to a highly intelligent and cynically oriented metaphorical letter that describes the current state of scientific research. The letter was written by Bernard K. Forscher in the year 1963 and published in Science Magazine, while he was working at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, EE.UU. Forscher´s brief letter was a sincere effort at expressing his personal perception of the deteriorating status of science. For years, he was a prominent scientific editor and knew full well what he was talking about. He was best known for his skillfulness at editing scientific papers

The letter´s, metaphorical implications, suggest that scientific inquiry, in similarity to the architectural construction of buildings, is becoming increasingly ordinary, low-quality, disorganized, and grossly prioritizing quantity over quality. Forscher´s letter is not a simile but a metaphor. Let´s take a minute to look at the differences between both terms.

A “simile” is a type of figure of speech that directly compares and contrasts two things. Similes are often compared and contrasted with metaphors. Similes compare and/or contrast two things using direct and explicit words such as "like," “unlike,” "as," or “not as.” Because of such, a simile is a rhetorical device utilized to compare and/or contrast two things. 

A “metaphor,” on the other hand, often create an implicit comparison and/or contrast by saying that something "is" or “is not” something else. A metaphor is formally defined as a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable. 

The key conceptual thread that runs like a lait-motif throughout Forscher´s metaphor is that fast-track faulty research and massive amounts of scientific publications resemble the fabrication and implementation of cheap and poor-quality bricks to construct towering buildings. Such faulty basic materials, known as scientific publications, build progressively upon each other, a process that leads to a myriad of questionable references and quotes conveniently utilized for faulty future research projects and publications. 

In Forscher´s metaphor, scientific research and publications are likened to the construction of buildings: the scientists represent the builders; the bricks represent the basic facts; and the hypothesis, theories, and explanations represent the buildings. In consequence, and starting from the quality of the basic building blocks, poorly designed or executed research leads to flawed and incorrect findings and conclusions, analogous to using faulty bricks in the first place. 

This retrograde process, wisely and elegantly exposed by Forscher, refers to the overall state of the scientific enterprise, as it stood in 1963 and still stands today in 2025. It defines a highly deficient and eminently pragmatic attitude where the constant pressures relative to publishing, lack of resources, and potential biases contribute to a situation where the quality of research is seriously and chronically compromised. 

The conclusion drawn from these facts is simple and to the point, when scientific research is built on faulty foundations (faulty bricks), the resulting hypothesis, scientific method, theory, explanation (edifice) is unstable and unreliable, potentially dangerous, and can lead to a serious and massive distortion and/or collapse of scientific understanding. As anything else in life, good construction, with quality bricks, and competent builders takes considerable time and effort to achieve.

Because of such, the brilliant and highly applicable "chaos in the brickyard" metaphor highlights serious concerns for the future development of better students, professors, and scientists. It also addresses the urgent need for more rigorous research practices and the totally equivocal and inoperant importance given to quantity over quality.

The decision to correct this situation rests in all of us …