Toward a Brave New World for Nursing Science

It is a tempestuous time in which we live. As scientists, we are not shielded from the tempest(s). How we emerge in the near and far future as scientists remains uncertain. Will our “brave new world” be one of hope and progress, such as that espoused by Miranda in Shakespeare's (1610/2025) The Tempest? Or will it be one of lost purpose like that described by Huxley (1932) in Brave New World? Although only time will tell, the good news is that nursing scientists have the ability to shape our future scientific world, even if it looks, and is, different from the one imagined even just a year ago. A number of recent experiences motivated my writing of this editorial. First, I had the opportunity to engage with the National Institutes of Health about the funding of two research awards—one a noncompeting continuation and the other a competing continuation. In both cases, I was asked to explain the focus of the application and to clarify the scientific priorities of the proposed work. Surprisingly, this required more thinking on my part than I thought it should have. Neither focus is new to me, conceptually or methodologically. Both build on a substantial history of related work that has occurred over 35 years. Both were designed to further advance nursing science by exploring emerging phenomena occurring within a broad focus, incorporating newly identified concepts within existing and evolving theoretical models, and employing novel methods to address research questions aimed at solving human health problems. My thinking led me to wonder if, in my initial preparation of the awards, I had overstated how the proposed work fit funder priorities at the time of submission rather than more enduring scientific priorities. In the end, my explanations of focus and clarity of priorities were accepted. Although I changed some words, in fact the scientific premise, the priorities of the projects, did not change. Fortunately, those of us involved with these projects will continue to solve critically important problems related to health outcomes. A second motivator for my writing was the reassignment to teach (after a year's break), one of our college's foundational courses for PhD students—philosophy of science and the development of nursing knowledge. I am not a philosopher nor am I necessarily an “expert” in knowledge development, even though “knowledge” is, in fact, my business. I am, however, a persistent student of the nursing discipline. I am curious about both our historical and future scientific paths. If you personally do not think our scientific history is important and if you have not examined the disciplinary choices we made in the past and their lasting effects (good and bad), I encourage you do some reading. You can start with Tobbell's excellent book, Dr. Nurse (Tobbell, 2022), or with a more focused version found in this journal (Tobbell, 2018). And if you have read this editorial column at all over the past 7 years, you are quite aware that nursing's disciplinary future is something that we at Nursing Research keep a close eye on. Beyond just curiosity, where we have been and where we are going scientifically is also important in our preparation of future nursing scientists. I strongly believe that those preparing to be nursing scientists need content in the science of nursing and not just methods. I have written before about the dearth of nursing scientific content in many PhD programs; we simply must do better in that regard. For my own purposes, I have done quite a bit of reading and rereading in preparation for my teaching assignment. Of course, there are far too many examples for me to recount here where authors have detailed excellent disciplinary content. I will, however, call out two. First, Walker's (2020) paper reminded me of some of the historical “gifts” given to our science about its nature and value. Briefly, these gifts include recognition that we value human dignity, are attentive to the art of “dialogue” in all its forms (including that generated by artificial intelligence), acknowledge the need for balance in human behavior, appreciate the context in which health (and illness) occurs, emphasize human self-care, and understand that science is emergent. We have received many gifts, a number of which are unacknowledged or at least underappreciated. Thinking about these gifts inspired me anew. I hope they inspire our students as well, lending credence to our contention that we have traveled far in our scientific development. A second reading from Jairath et al. (2018) encourages us to consider the future of theory development for nursing science, identifying core questions that remain important today about nursing's “metaparadigm,” science for practice, emerging methods and themes, and the preparation of future scientists (Jairath et al., 2018). In short, these nursing scientists-authors remind us that our knowledge, encapsulated within theoretical understanding, is not static. Rather, what counts as belonging within the domain of nursing science, how we apply or use nursing science in practice, and how we use nursing knowledge more generally to affect broader health outcomes requires ongoing, deliberative examination and discussion. A final motivator, which bridges the scenarios above, is my ongoing conversations with colleagues across the United States about the direction of nursing science, particularly as it relates to the preparation of future nursing scientists. Although there appears to be agreement among readers of Nursing Research on these matters (Pickler, 2025), I wish there was more widespread concurrence about our scientific priorities. As it is, I look for evidence of priorities in papers submitted to the journal. I appreciate authors' clear statements about how their work addresses the vexing problems of nursing science and how their findings might be useful to those engaged in nursing practice or in advancing nursing science. Unfortunately, over the past few years, instead of cohesively working to identify the most pressing disciplinary problems, we have tangentially followed whims and money rather than aligning our work in ways that guide professional nursing practice and, at the same time, build a stronger scientific foundation. Our naturally broad scope of interests as nurses, along with a small and not-growing-as-it-should cadre of nursing scientists, makes it difficult to coalesce around priorities. Because of inadequate numbers of nursing scientists and, to some extent, lack of agreed-upon priorities, we do not have great synergy in our efforts. Without synergy, scientific growth will be challenging. Yes, funding for research also matters. However, what matters more is a sense, if not a certainty of scientific community, and a sense that we share a common purpose. I think we do have a common, cohesive purpose; we are collectively working toward better health for all even if how we go about that work may differ. As Schlotfeldt (1985) noted 40 years ago, there is a need for leadership in creating a vision of nursing science that solves important problems of human health and well-being. Envisioning and moving toward a new world requires us to also be brave. We can continue to advance our disciplinary science by addressing the most pressing health needs of those we aim to serve; embedding our person-centered, holistic perspective within our work; and focusing on solving health problems that impede healthy, desired outcomes. A commitment to research that does these things rather than that which only serves to satisfy a funder will provide much needed disciplinary guidance to emerging and established nursing scientists about those important areas of scientific focus. Indeed, I am yearning for Miranda's brave new world. I am looking toward the “wondrous people” who will lead our scientific advancement, making extraordinary discoveries that improve health and healthcare delivery. Here at Nursing Research, we anticipate this future and to reading, reviewing, and publishing your contributions to nursing's brave, and exciting, world.