Frontiers Policy Labs

The human rights case can be made for Open Science – this has been made clear by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its General Comment No. 25 on science and economic, social, and cultural rights. In this this much-awaited interpretation of the so-called right to science under Art. 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Committee made clear that Open Science forms part of the right to science in the digital era. Released during the Covid-19 pandemic, the timing could not have been better, for the pandemic not only illustrated in unprecedented ways the importance of science in today’s world, but also the advantages of open research practices in speeding up scientific discovery. Yet, does this legal development mean that access to scientific data and content can now be enforced before courts via the right to science? A closer look reveals that important hurdles in claiming Open Science via the right to science remain. In this short contribution, our aim is to highlight some selected challenges of implementing and adjudicating open research practices via the right to science.  

Realizing effective scientific collaboration among nations is not an easy task. The trends we identified in the first paper of this series are a snapshot of the landscape of scientific collaboration. Taken together, they shine light on specific areas requiring attention to maximize the benefits of collaboration. While the dynamic nature of research and the complexity of the geo-political landscape makes it challenging to point to any single factor or policy that a country, company, or funder could change to support effective scientific collaboration, some general pathways to supporting international collaboration are clear.

Robert-Jan Smits

The inside story of Plan S, the ground-breaking campaign pledge to end the restrictive paywalls around taxpayer funded scientific research. Vital scientific knowledge freed and instantly available to the many, not just the few. The campaign coalition's architect, Robert-Jan Smits, shares his account of the shocks that Plan S delivered to the publishing world, and of the progress that unfolded.

We need more idealism in science and science policy to find solutions to challenges. If we restrict ourselves to what is tangible, known and established today, there is a risk that possible solutions to ‘wicked’ challenges that contribute to enriched and thriving individuals, societies, and their natural ecosystems could be missed. But if we ask, ‘what if?’, we introduce a capacity for idealism that opens up opportunities for creative critical thinking and imagination.

Over 65% of the European cloud market is in the hands of US companies. There are no significant social media platforms in European hands. Although a global leader in the 1990s, Europe’s share in semiconductor production has fallen to just 10% of the global market. Risk-capital investments are US dominated. These are just a few indications of how the EU is losing its strategic digital autonomy.

Given the unprecedented times and the need to lay foundations for the new, post-COVID world, we are asking prominent policymakers what they most need from scientists, and how they could most effectively assimilate scientific information. This knowledge will enable us to develop insightful and actionable material for Policy Labs, which will lead to further science-based policy reforms.

The EU is revamping its interest to get all member states to increase their Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product(GDP) from the current average of 2.2% to 3%. The rational for this policy is based on the belief that European technology industries will lag behind those in other countries unless more innovation is generated. Investment (GERD) is seen as a limiting factor and should be corrected. But is the premise for this policy as simple as the equation; money + research= Innovation? I argue that research is a necessary but not sufficient ingredient in the mix required to have better economic outcomes.

If one million scientists (approximately 10% of the world’s active science population in public service) committed two hours per week to science engagement with and for society (about 5% of their working time), this would create approximately 100 million hours/year dedicated to achieving science that engages meaningfully with policy and global decision makers. Those hours could catalyse a global butterfly effect that could carry into the future.