How Open Should Science Be?

Primary Contributors: Tiffany Cullen

Editors: Beckett Sterner

Introduction

Transparency, openness, and reproducibility are three commonly accepted features of science (Nosek, 2015). Regardless of what the research topic is or how the project is funded, it’s frequently assumed those who practice and study science do so in the pursuit of knowledge. With the amount of information constantly pouring out and the internet allowing for ease of access, there are implications that need to be considered for the public and also the researchers. Public safety is heavily focused on since people are more concerned about how new findings will affect themselves and their families. It’s personal, so releasing information carelessly or too soon has the potential to create chaos; however, retaining information also has the same affect. With the sciences so intertwined with our daily lives, how open should science be with the general population?

“Open science” has been talked about in difference contexts, but the meaning can be quite ambiguous. Because of the vagueness of “open science,” researchers compiled a number of resources, studies, and accounts, and they applied Aristotle’s method to define the phrase as “transparent and accessible knowledge that is shared and developed through collaborative networks” (Vicente-Saez, Ruben, and Clara Martinez-Fuentes). The model below created by these researchers provides a visual representation for the different facets of “open science.”

With knowledge at the heart of science, the four terms (transparent, accessible, shared, and collaborative-developed) are how variables that conceptualize “open science” can be used to measure and evaluated it from the academia perspective. For the policy, citizens, and business perspectives, the terms found in the gray circles are guides for people to debate the topic. This allows researchers and people who do not come from a science-oriented background to discuss the issue on a level playing field. As simple of a model as this is, it still doesn’t answer what open science looks like in practice.

Importance

When “open science” works as intended, it can be quite beneficial. Take Canada and how they struggled with their intellectual property being obtained from them. It was being exploited by other countries, simply taking Canadian research and selling it at high price points. Last year, a deal was created between Celgene (US Biotechnology Company) and a Canadian business that had been working on an early stage drug. Celgene put a down payment of US$40 million with the chance of totaling US$1 billion in profit. This is the largest investment of its kind to date (Fay, et al. 2020). The success of this deal was credited to using an “open science” approach. It allowed both parties to share data on the project. By doing so, the original Canadian company stayed a part of the endeavor rather than being bought out like so many do. Buying out successful, small businesses and monopolizing a market is a large practice in the United States especially by large pharmaceutical companies who will in turn seek out international licenses and patents.

It is unlikely that all people, companies, and agencies will collaborate as well as these two parties did, and there are substantial incentives for parties to pursue strategies that tip the scales in their favor. This is one reason why legal protections exist to safeguard intellectual knowledge. By obtaining patents, trademarks, and/ or licenses, they are able to claim credit for their ideas. This allow researchers to continue to release information as parts of the study are concluded. It also helps the investors by protecting the resources put forth by them, keeping them motivated to continue to fund research in the future. Because of these protections, people can keep up with the latest research, and the information cannot be acquired by another group who may want to out-do the original creators.

Releasing all information can come into in conflict with maintaining the rights of the patients, investors, researchers, and others involved in the study. On the patients’ and participants’ sides, but there are current protections set in place to prevent sensitive information from being released like patient information. Not only are there patient confidentiality agreements to specify what information will or will not be shared, it allows participants to control details they may not want to be made available. There are some cases where the study could be small enough, a simple descriptor could be the indicator that separates one patient from the group. Along with HIPAA, patients are protected by law to prevent unwanted information from being released.

While legal protections exist to protect the interests of patients and innovators, these protections can subject becoming tools for exploitation. Jorge Contreras has introduced the term “anticommons” to describe intellectual property, pointing out how areas of biomedical research are subject to be picked apart by separate entities taking ownership of little pieces. What’s worst is that patents aren’t even needed to do this since many companies are simply utilizing trade secrets to claim areas of research. With so many entities entering the biomedical field, Contreras believes “… data ownership not be parceled out to every living individual, because doing that would make biomedical research much harder to conduct…” (Rogers 2018). By doing so, research is slowed with companies not being able to access information because someone already got their hands on a piece.

Mapping Out The Problem

Does making the data and results of science pose risks of misuse?

[Content placeholder]

What are adequate safeguards on sharing data publicly?

[Content placeholder: see Walport and Brest 2011]

What obligations should use of public funds imply for public access?

[Content placeholder]

How can the patent process and regulation deliver benefits and prevent exploitation?

[Content placeholder]

References

Page updated

Report abuse