Open Science: an antidote against the lake of transparency
Andrea Langbecker
The open science movement is based on a new paradigm. It is a new way in which researchers produce and disseminate science. This is not just a slogan that wants to sell an idea. It is a serious and committed concept. It’s praxis.
This practice encompasses a variety of aspects, ranging from changing the conception about our behavior related to the production of our research, up to the choices we make regarding its publication. Additionally, it may discuss how do we engage in networks that develop research within this perspective, or how to participate in groups that struggle to find ways to expand access to scientific production. All these activities should consider a context that is still highly unequal and limited.
We know that there are still many challenges for this movement to take roots more effectively; and to be able to implement a new culture in the manner of producing science. Science is not something unique. There are differences between areas of knowledge, differences between countries, continents, which influence the possibilities of greater applicability – or resistance – to this modality.
This topic is extremely current and relevant for all researchers who seek another way of doing science that is more in tune and committed to the demands of the society. Our society, in addition to seeking answers to its needs, seeks more transparency in the way in which science is produced. Open Science can be an antidote against data manipulation, research that hides personal or corporate interests, and so many other harmful aspects that end up tarnishing the fundamental importance of science for the development of society.
A dire example happened in 1998 when a scientist suggested a possible relationship between the MMR vaccine (Measles, mumps, and rubella) and autism even without having a study to prove it. This statement had great repercussions in the British media, followed by a drop in vaccination rates in the United Kingdom (Boyce, 2006). Even though his suggestion was questioned by his peers, it has contributed, over the years, to promote the ideas of the anti-vaccine movement who try to link vaccines with the emergence of diseases and discredit their effectiveness. Opponents have always existed, but they have gained new breath with social media and the great possibility of circulating fake news, understood as: “Articles based on false information packaged to look like real news, to deceive readers, either for financial or ideological gain” (Tandoc, Jenkins, & Craft, 2019, p.674). The current health crisis presents conspiracy ideas against vaccines spreading by the social media, questioning their effectiveness and safety, inducing doubts in science and scientific institutions. This kind of argument reinforces the importance of a paradigm change. As a researcher in the area of health communication, this topic arose a special interest in me.
In this sense, Open Science can find a fruitful field for its development among Ph.D. students, who could internalize the other view in their research study. Maybe we may not put all of its precepts into practice at this moment, but they will be a guide to follow in our path as researchers; which could also be a guide for our journey.
As a doctoral student in Media research, I believe that the Open Science course at UC3M has offered us relevant knowledge through experts on this subject, professionals who kindly shared their knowledge, concerns, and passions regarding the topic, both in a theoretical and practical sense. The course also allowed us the access to a range of resources, such as platforms, websites, materials and videos, leading us to learn more in regard to this issue. Among the materials available, I highlight “Passport for Open Science”, as it is a guide that summarizes the main components of this modality, in an introductory and accessible way. It can be very useful for all those who wish to become more familiar with the subject. Access at:https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Passport-for-Open-Science-A-Practical-Guide-For-PhD-Students_30-10-2020_WEB.pdf
We hope that the Open Science movement wins over more and more hearts and minds.
Reference
Boyce, T. (2006). Journalism and expertise. Journalism Studies, 7(6), 889–906. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700600980652
Tandoc Jr, E.C., Jenkins, J., & Craft, S. (2019). Fake News as a Critical Incident in Journalism. Journalism Practice, 13(6), 673–689.