On the lack of consensus over the meaning of openness: an empirical study

This study set out to explore the views and motivations of those involved in a number of recent and current advocacy efforts (such as open science, computational provenance, and reproducible research) aimed at making science and scientific artifacts accessible to a wider audience. Using a exploratory approach, the study tested whether a consensus exists among advocates of these initiatives about the key concepts, exploring the meanings that scientists attach to the various mechanisms for sharing their work, and the social context in which this takes place. The study used a purposive sampling strategy to target scientists who have been active participants in these advocacy efforts, and an open-ended questionnaire to collect detailed opinions on the topics of reproducibility, credibility, scooping, data sharing, results sharing, and the effectiveness of the peer review process. We found evidence of a lack of agreement on the meaning of key terminology, and a lack of consensus on some of the broader goals of these advocacy efforts. These results can be explained through a closer examination of the divergent goals and approaches adopted by different advocacy efforts. We suggest that the scientific community could benefit from a broader discussion of what it means to make scientific research more accessible and how this might best be achieved.     

Scientific Citizenship and good governance: implications for biotechnology

In the wake of public distrust regarding biotechnology, it has been suggested that the debate should be moved "upstream", whereby the public help to set research priorities. Although many scientists see this as an illogical reaction to a loss of faith in science, we argue that the boundaries between science and its technological applications have become blurred and this produces conflicts of interests that have led to this crisis of trust. Furthermore, this distrust is also a crisis in governance that calls for a new open and democratic approach to scientific research. We propose that the concept of Scientific Citizenship, based on good governance, will help to restore public trust and bridge the gap between science and the society that it serves. Integral to this is the suggestion that the governance of science forms part of the training for scientists.     

Political advocacy by the American Society for Cell Biology and its partners

I trace how the American Society for Cell Biology became a strong political advocate for the scientific community. I celebrate how good leadership and an effective staff enabled its energetic volunteer organization to have an impact, but I also ask how the effort can be made more successful.Many scientists take for granted that their scientific societies advocate for the well being of their individual members and the health of science. However, advocacy is a relatively recent development that emerged over the past two decades. Advocacy is essential in a democracy because science competes for taxpayer dollars with every other activity supported by the federal government. Advocacy is also important to ensure that lawmakers adopt sensible policies. I review how the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) and its allies learned how to fulfill this obligation, and I ask the reader to join the effort. The objective of these advocacy efforts is to influence political decisions through education and information, but the efforts by scientific societies are completely nonpartisan. Support from both political parties is essential to meet our goals.During the 1970s and 1980s biomedical scientists discussed federal funding and public policies that affected our science. Each year the public policy staff of the Federation of Societies of Experimental Biology (FASEB) helped member societies reach a consensus recommendation on the level of federal funding for the biosciences. However, we tended to talk to ourselves because we lacked effective ways to communicate with politicians or the outside world. For the most part we relegated the responsibility for advocacy to medical school deans and presidents of research universities. Their professional associations—the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Association of American Universities (AAU)—generally did a reasonable job of representing the interests of the scientists who worked at their schools.     

NCI's publication affiliation conundrum: Reframing innovation to incentivize an equitable path for advocate representation

Advocacy engagement has been at the forefront of National Cancer Institute (NCI) efforts to advance scientific discoveries and transform medical interventions. Nonetheless, the journey for advocates has been uneven. Case in Point: NCI publication affiliation rules of engagement pose unique equity challenges while raising questions about structural representation in biomedical research. Abiding by the core rationale that publication affiliation should be tailored to employment status, the NCI has systematically denied research advocate volunteers the opportunity to specifically list NCI as an institutional affiliation on academic publications. Unpacking advocate NCI publication affiliation restrictions and its links with advocacy heritage preservation and convergent science goals poses unique diversity, equity, and inclusion challenges and opportunities. Improving the quality of structural representation in biomedical research requires new theories of action and flexible planning to advance, promote and build capacity for strategic advocacy inclusion and equity within publication affiliation initiatives. Here we highlight several opportunities for how leadership might formulate a radically different vision for NCI's approach. This perspective interrogates the best way forward for ensuring that biomedical employee and volunteer advocate workforce publication affiliation intersections are characterized by increased creativity and representation parity. Imbuing the scientist and clinical researcher archetype with social dimensions, we join NCI critical thinkers in urging employees, funded academics, and volunteer citizen scientists to collectively assume the role as paladins of science and integrity who view the triumphs of making a difference in science alongside the social responsibility of promoting transdisciplinary professionalism and the democratization of science.     

Philip R. White (1901–1968)—a tribute

The groundbreaking research carried out by Philip R. White in the 1930s and 1940s played a critical early role in the development of modern plant biotechnology and the production of biotech crops. He gained instant fame and became a historical figure early in his career by becoming the first person to attain unlimited growth of cultured plant tissues. White was one of the best known and most influential figures of his generation in plant cell culture research. His tireless and lifelong efforts to promote the use of plant cell culture systems inspired a generation of scientists and stimulated much scientific activity. White was not only a brilliant and visionary scientist but also a highly principled man who spoke courageously about the great moral and political issues of his day. He was admired as much for his science as for his humanity. His belief that plant cell culture research was not well represented at national and international meetings, and his deeply held conviction that science had to be international and without borders in order to be of service to humankind led to the founding of the International Association for Plant Biotechnology in 1963, currently the largest forum for the international plant biotechnology community. This tribute honors and celebrates Philip R. White for his inspiring science, for his kind and generous mentoring of young scientists, for his advocacy of plant cell culture research and its applications, for his promotion of international scientific exchange and cooperation, and for his leadership in the founding of the International Association for Plant Biotechnology.     

Broadening the voice of science: Promoting scientific communication in the undergraduate classroom

Effective and accurate communication of scientific findings is essential. Unfortunately, scientists are not always well trained in how to best communicate their results with other scientists nor do all appreciate the importance of speaking with the public. Here, we provide an example of how the development of oral communication skills can be integrated with research experiences at the undergraduate level. We describe our experiences developing, running, and evaluating a course for undergraduates that complemented their existing undergraduate research experiences with instruction on the nature of science and intensive training on the development of science communication skills. Students delivered science talks, research monologues, and poster presentations about the ecological and evolutionary research in which they were involved. We evaluated the effectiveness of our approach using the CURE survey and a focus group. As expected, undergraduates reported strong benefits to communication skills and confidence. We provide guidance for college researchers, instructors, and administrators interested in motivating and equipping the next generation of scientists to be excellent science communicators.     

Are our universities producing too many PhDs?

As we enter the 21st century, we face a world that will be increasingly dominated by science and technology. More and more jobs will require many of the analytical and thinking skills of a scientist. Citizens everywhere must also become better able to evaluate and understand the judgements of scientific and technical experts when making personal and community decisions. To spread the values and knowledge of science much more widely throughout our societies, we must also spread scientists. Therefore, advanced training in science and the acquisition of important skills through an extensive exposure to research are valuable tools for a wide variety of occupations.     

Science‐Driven Restoration: A Square Grid on a Round Earth?

Is formal science necessarily an effective framework and methodology for designing and implementing ecological restoration programs? My experience as an ecologist in Hawaii suggests that even when scientific research programs are explicitly designed to guide and facilitate restoration, the culture of science, heterogeneity of nature, and real‐world complexities of implementing land management practices often limit the practical relevance of conventional scientific research. Although alternative models such as adaptive management and transdisciplinary science may facilitate research that more robustly models the real world, there is often little professional support or incentive to orient even these nonconventional research approaches toward actually solving on‐the‐ground problems. Thus, if one’s goal is to accomplish ecological restoration as quickly and efficiently as possible, a trial‐and‐error/intelligent tinkering–type approach might often be better than using more rigorous, data‐intensive scientific methodology. However, the sympatric implementation of ecological restoration and scientific research programs can lead to valuable synergies such as mutual logistical and financial support and the exchange of distinct forms of knowledge. The professional activities and mere presence of scientists can also greatly enhance a program’s prestige and visibility, which in turn can indirectly promote more and better ecological restoration. Improving our understanding of when formal science can directly assist restoration projects and when its value will more likely be synergistic and indirect could lead to better science, better ecological restoration, and better relationships between these two cultures.     

Tailoring science outreach through E-matching using a community-based participatory approach

In an effort to increase science exposure for pre-college (K-12) students and as part of the science education reform agenda, many biomedical research institutions have established university-community partnerships. Typically, these science outreach programs consist of pre-structured, generic exposure for students, with little community engagement. However, the use of a medium that is accessible to both teachers and scientists, electronic web-based matchmaking (E-matching) provides an opportunity for tailored outreach utilizing a community-based participatory approach (CBPA), which involves all stakeholders in the planning and implementation of the science outreach based on the interests of teachers/students and scientists. E-matching is a timely and urgent endeavor that provides a rapid connection for science engagement between teachers/students and experts in an effort to fill the science outreach gap. National Lab Network (formerly National Lab Day), an ongoing initiative to increase science equity and literacy, provides a model for engaging the public in science via an E-matching and hands-on learning approach. We argue that science outreach should be a dynamic endeavor that changes according to the needs of a target school. We will describe a case study of a tailored science outreach activity in which a public school that serves mostly under-represented minority students from disadvantaged backgrounds were E-matched with a university, and subsequently became equal partners in the development of the science outreach plan. In addition, we will show how global science outreach endeavors may utilize a CBPA, like E-matching, to support a pipeline to science among under-represented minority students and students from disadvantaged backgrounds. By merging the CBPA concept with a practical case example, we hope to inform science outreach practices via the lens of a tailored E-matching approach.     

Are our universities producing too many PhDs?

As we enter the 21st century, we face a world that will be increasingly dominated by science and technology. More and more jobs will require many of the analytical and thinking skills of a scientist. Citizens everywhere must also become better able to evaluate and understand the judgements of scientific and technical experts when making personal and community decisions. To spread the values and knowledge of science much more widely throughout our societies, we must also spread scientists. Therefore, advanced training in science and the acquisition of important skills through an extensive exposure to research are valuable tools for a wide variety of occupations.     

Are our universities producing too many PhDs?

As we enter the 21st century, we face a world that will be increasingly dominated by science and technology. More and more jobs will require many of the analytical and thinking skills of a scientist. Citizens everywhere must also become better able to evaluate and understand the judgements of scientific and technical experts when making personal and community decisions. To spread the values and knowledge of science much more widely throughout our societies, we must also spread scientists. Therefore, advanced training in science and the acquisition of important skills through an extensive exposure to research are valuable tools for a wide variety of occupations.     

On the gap between science and conservation implementation—A national park perspective

In the conservation of forests and protected areas, a gap lies between scientific knowledge and the management decisions made. From our perspective as scientists studying a national park, who deal daily with both research and administration, we discuss the general reasons for this gap. We provide examples (saproxylic beetles and Norway spruce genetics) to demonstrate the dilemma of practitioners who aim at basing their decisions on evidence. From our experience, the approach of problem solving is crucial, yet in many cases, the bidirectional bridge between science and application is poorly established. We specifically urge governments to organize nation-wide species distribution data; scientists to support the conservation community with new functional approaches, also in combination with Red Lists to identify diversity hotspots and major threats; stakeholders to identify land-use alternatives for scientists to study; state research institutes to increase the proportion of scientists; scientists and governmental authorities to regularly summarize scientific results and conclusions for practitioners; and agencies should foster incentives for scientists to deal with conservation efforts.     

Chimpanzee identification and social network construction through an online citizen science platform

Citizen science has grown rapidly in popularity in recent years due to its potential to educate and engage the public while providing a means to address a myriad of scientific questions. However, the rise in popularity of citizen science has also been accompanied by concerns about the quality of data emerging from citizen science research projects. We assessed data quality in the online citizen scientist platform Chimp&See, which hosts camera trap videos of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and other species across Equatorial Africa. In particular, we compared detection and identification of individual chimpanzees by citizen scientists with that of experts with years of experience studying those chimpanzees. We found that citizen scientists typically detected the same number of individual chimpanzees as experts, but assigned far fewer identifications (IDs) to those individuals. Those IDs assigned, however, were nearly always in agreement with the IDs provided by experts. We applied the data sets of citizen scientists and experts by constructing social networks from each. We found that both social networks were relatively robust and shared a similar structure, as well as having positively correlated individual network positions. Our findings demonstrate that, although citizen scientists produced a smaller data set based on fewer confirmed IDs, the data strongly reflect expert classifications and can be used for meaningful assessments of group structure and dynamics. This approach expands opportunities for social research and conservation monitoring in great apes and many other individually identifiable species.     

Our use,misuse, and abandonment of a concept: Whither habitat?

The foundational concept of habitat lies at the very root of the entire science of ecology, but inaccurate use of the term compromises scientific rigor and communication among scientists and nonscientists. In 1997, Hall, Krausman & Morrison showed that ‘habitat’ was used correctly in only 55% of articles. We ask whether use of the term has been more accurate since their plea for standardization and whether use varies across the broader range of journals and taxa in the contemporary literature (1998–2012). We searched contemporary literature for ‘habitat’ and habitat‐related terms, ranking usage as either correct or incorrect, following a simplified version of Hall et al.'s definitions. We used generalized linear models to compare use of the term in contemporary literature with the papers reviewed by Hall et al. and to test the effects of taxa, journal impact in the contemporary articles and effects due to authors that cited Hall et al. Use of the term ‘habitat’ has not improved; it was still only used correctly about 55% of the time in the contemporary data. Proportionately more correct uses occurred in articles that focused on animals compared to ones that included plants, and papers that cited Hall et al. did use the term correctly more often. However, journal impact had no effect. Some habitat terms are more likely to be misused than others, notably ‘habitat type’, usually used to refer to vegetation type, and ‘suitable habitat’ or ‘unsuitable habitat’, which are either redundant or nonsensical by definition. Inaccurate and inconsistent use of the term can lead to (1) misinterpretation of scientific findings; (2) inefficient use of conservation resources; (3) ineffective identification and prioritization of protected areas; (4) limited comparability among studies; and (5) miscommunication of science‐based findings. Correct usage would improve communication with scientists and nonscientists, thereby benefiting conservation efforts, and ecology as a science.     

To Crowdfund Research,Scientists Must Build an Audience for Their Work

As rates of traditional sources of scientific funding decline, scientists have become increasingly interested in crowdfunding as a means of bringing in new money for research. In fields where crowdfunding has become a major venue for fundraising such as the arts and technology, building an audience for one''s work is key for successful crowdfunding. For science, to what extent does audience building, via engagement and outreach, increase a scientist''s abilities to bring in money via crowdfunding? Here we report on an analysis of the #SciFund Challenge, a crowdfunding experiment in which 159 scientists attempted to crowdfund their research. Using data gathered from a survey of participants, internet metrics, and logs of project donations, we find that public engagement is the key to crowdfunding success. Building an audience or “fanbase” and actively engaging with that audience as well as seeking to broaden the reach of one''s audience indirectly increases levels of funding. Audience size and effort interact to bring in more people to view a scientist''s project proposal, leading to funding. We discuss how projects capable of raising levels of funds commensurate with traditional funding agencies will need to incorporate direct involvement of the public with science. We suggest that if scientists and research institutions wish to tap this new source of funds, they will need to encourage and reward activities that allow scientists to engage with the public.     

The Medawar Lecture 1998 is science dangerous?

The idea that science is dangerous is deeply embedded in our culture, particularly in literature, yet science provides the best way of understanding the world. Science is not the same as technology. In contrast to technology, reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and has no moral or ethical value. Scientists are not responsible for the technological applications of science; the very nature of science is that it is not possible to predict what will be discovered or how these discoveries could be applied. The obligation of scientists is to make public both any social implications of their work and its technological applications. A rare case of immoral science was eugenics. The image of Frankenstein has been turned by the media into genetic pornography, but neither cloning nor stem cells or gene therapy raise new ethical issues. There are no areas of research that are so socially sensitive that research into them should be proscribed. We have to rely on the many institutions of a democratic society: parliament, a free and vigorous press, affected groups and the scientists themselves. That is why programmes for the public understanding of science are so important. Alas, we still do not know how best to do this.     

Interpreting evidence: why values can matter as much as science

Despite increasing awareness of the ways in which non-epistemic values play roles in science, many scientists remain reluctant to acknowledge values at stake in their own work. Even when research clearly relates to risk assessment and establishing public policy, contexts in which the presence of values is less likely to be contentious, scientists tend to present such research as merely involving empirical questions about what the evidence is. As a result, debates over policy-related science tend to be framed as purely epistemic debates over the state of the evidence. We argue that this neglects the important ways that ethical and social values play legitimate roles in judgments about what we take to be evidence for a particular policy. Using the case of recent disputes about the relative safety of home birth, we argue that although the debate has been framed as a purely scientific one about the empirical evidence for home birth, it actually involves disagreements about underlying value assumptions. If our claims are correct, then in order to move the debate forward, scientists will need to engage in a critical discussion about the values at stake.     

Tom Pollard,father of life science policy advocacy

Tom Pollard has played an instrumental role in the creation of the life science policy and advocacy programs familiar to life scientists today. This article reviews the creation of that program and the role Tom played. In addition, it briefly discusses advocacy activities now available to life scientists and why they should participate in these activities.     

Mirko Drazen Grmek: the genesis of scientific fact and archaeology of disease

Professor Mirko Drazen Grmek (Krapina 1924--Paris 2000) was one of the most prominent Croatian scientists. Work in history of science directed him to the crossroads of various fields placing his approach in anthropological perspective. Two models will serve as illustrations of his main theories. The historical reconstruction of scientific discovery (mostly on examples of 17th century) will be presented as well as Grmek's ideas on a concept of disease. The introduction of the term "memoricide" within his activities during aggression on Croatia is mentioned.     

Bridging Restoration Science and Practice: Results and Analysis of a Survey from the 2009 Society for Ecological Restoration International Meeting

Developing and strengthening a more mutualistic relationship between the science of restoration ecology and the practice of ecological restoration has been a central but elusive goal of SERI since its inaugural meeting in 1989. We surveyed the delegates to the 2009 SERI World Conference to learn more about their perceptions of and ideas for improving restoration science, practice, and scientist/practitioner relationships. The respondents' assessments of restoration practice were less optimistic than their assessments of restoration science. Only 26% believed that scientist/practitioner relationships were “generally mutually beneficial and supportive of each other,” and the “science–practice gap” was the second and third most frequently cited category of factors limiting the science and practice of restoration, respectively (“insufficient funding” was first in both cases). Although few faulted practitioners for ignoring available science, many criticized scientists for ignoring the pressing needs of practitioners and/or failing to effectively communicate their work to nonscientists. Most of the suggestions for bridging the gap between restoration science and practice focused on (1) developing the necessary political support for more funding of restoration science, practice, and outreach; and (2) creating alternative research paradigms to both facilitate on‐the‐ground projects and promote more mutualistic exchanges between scientists and practitioners. We suggest that one way to implement these recommendations is to create a “Restoration Extension Service” modeled after the United States Department of Agriculture's Cooperative Extension Service. We also recommend more events that bring together a fuller spectrum of restoration scientists, practitioners, and relevant stakeholders.