It Takes a Conscious Effort: Helping Society Benefit from the Open Science Movement

Vol. 128, No. 5 Science SelectionOpen AccessIt Takes a Conscious Effort: Helping Society Benefit from the Open Science Movementis accompanied byMaking Open Science Work for Science and Society Janet L. Pelley Janet L. Pelley Search for more papers by this author Published:22 May 2020CID: 054001https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6179View Article in:中文版AboutSectionsPDF ToolsDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail AbstractThe open science movement, with its goal of making data and conclusions more transparent and accessible, has the potential to transform both science and society.1 Although open data may be beneficial for scientists, without interpretation this information is virtually useless for decision makers charged with setting science-based policy, much less for the general public.2,3 A recent commentary in Environmental Health Perspectives asserts that making open science relevant for society will require partnerships to share knowledge between scientists and the public, journals, research institutions, and government agencies.4Many members of the general public want to understand the limitations of scientific information but lack the technical expertise or science background to discern the nuances for themselves. Therefore, if open science is to have a positive impact on society, researchers must be prepared to interpret, synthesize, and present information in a readily accessible manner. Image: © iStockphoto/monkeybusinessimages.The authors launched their study after reviewing calls from prominent science organizations to facilitate access to scientific findings.5,6 “We looked for methods on how to implement this goal in the open science documents, but we didn’t see details on how to serve the public,” says Kevin Elliott, a philosopher of science at Michigan State University and lead author of the commentary. In fact, a previous survey of 22 principal investigators in the fields of systems biology, synthetic biology, and bioinformatics revealed that most of these experts defined open science as practices that serve the scientific community, such as open access to journal articles and data.7 Yet “most nonspecialists can’t make sense out of technical articles and data,” Elliott says.Hoping to identify strategies to facilitate access to open science, Elliott and coauthor David Resnik, a bioethicist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, focused on the central concept of transparency. They distinguished between two different forms of transparency: one geared toward helping scientists share discoveries and improve reproducibility, and one focused on enabling decision makers and the public to make effective use of scientific information. Each form requires a different set of tactics to avail its audience of the benefits of open science.“What may be most important for nonspecialists is being able to understand the significance of the research, its weaknesses or shortcomings, the value judgements associated with it, how it fits in the broader context, and what the implications are,” Elliott says. To achieve these goals, he and Resnik compiled a list of strategies for communicating science to this audience.Scientists themselves can use social media and science communication websites such as https://theconversation.com to share their work in an accessible way. Journals can publish summaries or highlights of each article and host blogs for authors to discuss key results. And government agencies can develop initiatives to help decision makers make use of data. One example of this is SERVIR ( https://servirglobal.net/), a joint effort by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Agency for International Development. This project helps decision makers in developing countries employ Earth observation data in solving challenges in food security, water resources, and natural disasters.Elliott and Resnik point out that it takes a conscious effort to design mechanisms that enable the public to fully benefit from scientific research. Although many scientists want to give back to society, some worry that public engagement will take time away from publishing their work and thus advancing their careers, says Tracey Holloway, an air quality scientist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. She currently leads the NASA Health and Air Quality Applied Sciences Team, which fosters collaboration between scientists, health organizations, and members of the public.8 “Universities, scientific societies, and funding agencies can help change that culture by rewarding outreach,” Holloway says—for example, by funding grants specifically for outreach tools.“This paper gives us a framework to discuss how open science can transform the way science and society interact,” says Raj Pandya, director of the American Geophysical Union’s Thriving Earth Exchange.9 “This is part of a transformative time in science that has the potential to open science up in ways that make it available to build a better future and to engage in a way that’s more equitable and accessible than before.”Janet L. Pelley, MS, based in Victoria, BC, Canada, writes for Chemical & Engineering News and Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.References1. Hecker S, Haklay M, Bowser A, Makuch Z, Vogel J, Bonn A. 2018. Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy. London, UK: UCL Press. Crossref, Google Scholar2. Löfstedt R, Way D. 2016. Transparency and trust in the European pharmaceutical sector: outcomes from an experimental study. J Risk Res 19(9):1082–1103, 10.1080/13669877.2014.919517. Crossref, Google Scholar3. Bezuidenhout LM, Leonelli S, Kelly AH, Rappert B. 2017. Beyond the digital divide: towards a situated approach to open data. Sci Public Policy 44(4):464–475, 10.1093/scipol/scw036. Crossref, Google Scholar4. Elliott KC, Resnik DB. 2019. Making open science work for science and society. Environ Health Perspect 127(7):075002, PMID: 31353949, 10.1289/EHP4808. Link, Google Scholar5. NAS (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Google Scholar6. Royal Society. 2012. Science as an Open Enterprise. London, UK: Royal Society. Google Scholar7. Levin N, Leonelli S, Weckowska D, Castle D, Dupré J. 2016. How do scientists define openness? Exploring the relationship between open science policies and research practice. Bull Sci Technol Soc 36(2):128–141, PMID: 27807390, 10.1177/0270467616668760. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8. Holloway T, Jacob DJ, Miller D. 2018. Short history of NASA applied science teams for air quality and health. J Appl Remote Sens 12(4):042611, 10.1117/1.JRS.12.042611. Crossref, Google Scholar9. American Geophysical Union. 2020. Thriving Earth Exchange. [Website.] https://thrivingearthexchange.org/ [accessed 20 May 2020]. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesMaking Open Science Work for Science and SocietyJul 29, 2019, 12:00:00 AMEnvironmental Health Perspectives Vol. 128, No. 5 May 2020Metrics Downloaded 1,548 times About Article Metrics Publication History Manuscript received5 September 2019Manuscript accepted5 September 2019Originally published22 May 2020 Financial disclosures License information EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted. Note to readers with disabilities EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected]. Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days.