Full Throttle: COVID-19 Open Science to Build Planetary Public Goods.

Abstract

OMICS: A Journal of Integrative BiologyVol. 24, No. 9 EditorialFree AccessFull Throttle: COVID-19 Open Science to Build Planetary Public GoodsRené Von Schomberg and Vural ÖzdemirRené Von SchombergAddress correspondence to: Dr. René Von Schomberg, Directorate General for Research and Innovation, European Commission, Belgium 1049 E-mail Address: rene.vonschomberg@ec.europa.euDirectorate General for Research and Innovation, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.Technical University Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.Search for more papers by this author and Vural ÖzdemirDr. Vural Özdemir, Editor-in-Chief, OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, New Rochelle, NY 10801, USA E-mail Address: OJIB@liebertpub.comE-mail Address: vural.ozdemir@protonmail.comOMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, New Rochelle, New York, USA.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:2 Sep 2020https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2020.0118AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail The COVID-19 pandemic is an epic calamity. It also has a silver lining. Amid the crisis, communities around the world are contemplating on hard lessons about fragility of life, existential threats, and the importance of thinking beyond the socially constructed binary of humans versus nature (Roy, 2020; Wade, 2020). The latter binary has underpinned the invasion of animal habitats by humans, for example, through relentless extraction of finite planetary natural resources over the centuries, in effect bringing humans and animals in proximity (Özdemir, 2019). The unchecked human power on nature is a factor feeding the rise of zoonotic infection outbreaks in the first quarter of the 21st century, with microorganisms jumping from their animal hosts to humans.But none of this was inevitable or preordained. Ecological crises can be prevented or their adverse impacts reduced by establishing planetary public goods (PPGs), as anticipatory responses to pandemics, climate change, and other crises looming on the horizon. A prominent lesson emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic is that planetary health care, vaccines, essential medicines, and personal protective equipment ought to be PPGs. This is important for both instrumental and normative reasons.First, to stem a massive pandemic such as COVID-19, PPGs should be available to the whole of society in a sustainable/enduring manner, and to ensure that the virus does not gain a stronghold in, for example, conflict and war zones or communities faced with poverty. Second, building PPGs is important normatively, too, in terms of what kind of a society we want to live in during and after the COVID-19 crisis.The reality on the ground has been different, however, than a vision of pandemic response based on PPGs. People without social safety nets, refugees, homeless individuals, or migrants with inadequate access to health care, and communities exposed to long-standing historical injustices are at greater risk for poor pandemic outcomes (APM Research Lab, 2020; Eichengreen, 2020). Leaving the design and development of and access to health care, vaccines and essential medicines to market efficiency mechanisms as commodities, rather than as PPGs, create communities with haves and have-nots, deepen the social fault lines, weaken the understanding of health as a universal human right, and do not bode well for anticipatory and robust governance of existential ecological risks in the 21st century and beyond.A new modus operandi for science and innovation in the COVID-19 era would be putting the concept of PPGs into practice to ensure planetary health, vaccines and drugs have scale, speed, and surge capacities in times of crisis, are available to everyone in society, and importantly, designed and developed in ways that are broadly experiential and responsive to societal needs, values, and priorities (Özdemir et al., 2020).Open Science to Build PPGsThe rationale for open science is actually simple and straightforward: sharing knowledge and data as early as possible in the research process. To build PPGs in times of normalcy as well as planetary crisis, we need open science throughout the entire innovation lifecycle, from research design, data production, and sharing to translation into knowledge-based innovations. Open science is also crucial for critically informed deliberation on veracity of data and emerging knowledge (Bayram et al., 2020; Sclove, 2020). Open science can help all relevant knowledge actors to realize science in a spirit of responsible innovation and build PPGs (Von Schomberg and Hankins, 2019; Von Schomberg, 2019).Science progresses essentially through knowledge-communication in collaborative research settings (Zhao et al., 2014). Yet, the dominant current practice is to incentivize and reward scientists to do something else: publish as much and as fast as possible with an eye to establishing individual prestige that embeds scientists and science regulators alike in cultures that lack reflexivity, and are laden with self-serving instrumentalism and (overly) competitive science.Absent open science, publishing activities focusing on quantity over quality take precedence over delivering on social relevance while science becomes self-referential: science is then assessed according to narrow criteria of excellence on which only scientists determine in ways detached from society. These criteria are used as effective arguments to keep societal and ecological interests out of the equation in defense of the “autonomy” of science and their institutions (Benessia et al., 2016; Guston et al., 2009; Holbrook, 2005; Özdemir, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c; Ravetz, 2016; Sarewitz, 2016). In addition, narrowly framed “excellence”-driven science is enabled under very competitive funding systems and scientists spend a large amount of their time submitting proposals for doing self-referential “excellent” research rather than engaging in a collaborative manner on essential exchanges of knowledge that address PPGs and pressing social needs.Johan Bollen rightly noted that the “European University Association in 2016 estimated that the equivalent of at least one-quarter of Europe's Horizon 2020 funding program goes to preparing grant applications. A 2013 study estimated that Australian scientists collectively spent more than five centuries of time preparing 3727 proposals in 2012 (Herbert et al., 2013)” (Bollen, 2018).The current rewards and incentives system for scientists has a heavy reliance on use of quantitative bibliometrics that chase researchers on their research productivity (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, 2012). This results in a paradox of scientific productivity. The more individual scientists become productive (in terms of the current system), the less productive the scientific system becomes in terms of actually delivering on societally relevant and desirable outputs. This paradox becomes particularly visible against the current background of addressing an ecological crisis such as COVID-19.Open science would help remedy the aforementioned deficits in our innovation ecosystems that are hindering progress toward societally meaningful COVID-19 solutions. Open science would contribute toward the need to assess research on its own merits and its relative contribution to a research mission, for example, the production of a vaccine, rather than on the basis of the journal in which the research is published. This would also help consider a broader range of research impacts such as influence on policy and practice in addition to research publications (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, 2012).Concluding ThoughtsStrengthening open science and PPGs with robust democraciesImplementing open science, alone, is not sufficient to build PPGs. We also need well-functioning democracies. The critical deliberation of research design, data veracity, and the sharing of scientific knowledge require an open society and democracy (Frodeman, 2020; Özdemir, 2020a; Sclove, 2020). Societies that lack functioning democracies are unlikely to be able to implement open science and build PPGs in ways that are accountable, veritable, and socially responsive. To this end, it is noteworthy that the recent rise of authoritarian populism as a way of governance has caused marked regression of liberal democracies (Geiselberger, 2017; Rankin, 2020).It is oftentimes taken for granted in scientific communities that the presence of elections and procedural correctness guarantee a functioning democracy. Voting is only one component of democracy, however, and in and of itself, insufficient for a robust democracy that requires systems thinking beyond the ballot box. Political scientists have long noted the imprecision of voting as a mechanism for democracy (Lindblom and Woodhouse, 1993). In a well-functioning democracy, for those who win an electoral campaign and acquire political authority, there are, and should be, limits to their reach and power to guard against any potential tyranny of the victor or of the majority. In a genuine democracy, “the power of an elected political authority is limited by several mechanisms. These include, for example, free press and critically informed media to hold power to account and fact-check; separation of powers (e.g., of legislation and judiciary); guarantee of civil rights and freedoms by constitution and their enforcement by an independent judiciary” (Bayram et al., 2020). However, democracies also have to further evolve and establish mechanisms for anticipatory governance, promoting early and critically informed public deliberation on issues of science and technology. The institutes for technology assessment that were institutionalized for advising national parliaments during the latter half of the past century such as the Rathenau Institute in the Netherlands or the Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag (TAB) need to be reinforced for that purpose.Despite the immense suffering caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the difficult road ahead, there is a silver lining. This crisis can cultivate a culture of open science and buttress democracies around the world, and by extension, build the much needed PPGs. These will help us respond to current and future ecological crises in ways that are anticipatory, democratic, efficient, and principled.DisclaimerThe views expressed in this study are those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.Author Disclosure StatementThe authors declare they have no competing financial interests.Funding InformationNo funding was received for this article.ReferencesAPM Research Lab. (2020). The Color of Coronavirus: COVID-19 Deaths by Race and Ethnicity in the US. American Public Media. https://www.apmresearchlab.org/covid/deaths-by-race. Accessed June 21, 2020. Google ScholarBayram M, Springer S, Garvey CK, and Özdemir V. (2020). COVID-19 digital health innovation policy: A portal to alternative futures in the making. OMICS 24 (in press); DOI: 10.1089/omi.2020.0089. Link, Google ScholarBenessia A, Funtowicz S, Giampietro M, et al. (2016). The Rightful Place of Science: Science on the Verge. Tempe, AZ: Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes. Google ScholarBollen J. (2018). Who would you share your funding with? Nature 560, 143. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarEichengreen B. (2020). Rage against the pandemic. Project Syndicate. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/covid19-racial-disparities-fuel-usa-protests-by-barry-eichengreen-2020-06?utm_source=Project±Syndicate±Newsletter&utm_campaign=36dca8956a-covid_newsletter_11_06_2020&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_73bad5b7d8-36dca8956a-105990839&mc_cid=36dca8956a&mc_eid=7d6839b074. Accessed June 21, 2020. Google ScholarFrodeman R. (2020). What happens when society emphasizes technical education and treats the humanities as irrelevant? The Dallas Morning News. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/02/03/what-happens-when-society-emphasizes-technical-education-and-treats-the-humanities-as-irrelevant/. Accessed June 21, 2020. Google ScholarGeiselberger H. (2017). The Great Regression. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press. Google ScholarGuston DH, Sarewitz D, and Miller C. (2009). Scientists not immune to partisanship. Science 323, 582. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarHerbert DL, Barnett AG, and Graves N. (2013). Funding: Australia's grant system wastes time. Nature 495, 314. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarHolbrook JB. (2005). Assessing the science–society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation's second merit review criterion. Technol Soc 27, 437–451. Crossref, Google ScholarLindblom CE, and Woodhouse EJ. (1993). The Policy-Making Process. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Google ScholarÖzdemir V. (2019). Innovating goverance for planetary health with three critically informed frames. OMICS 23, 623–630. Link, Google ScholarÖzdemir V. (2020a). Genomics, the internet of things, artificial intelligence and society. In: Applied Genomics and Public Health. Patrinos G, ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 275–284. Crossref, Google ScholarÖzdemir V. (2020b). The science and politics of coronavirus. DUVAR English, Istanbul. https://www.duvarenglish.com/opinion/2020/03/16/the-science-and-politics-of-coronavirus/. Accessed June 21, 2020. Google ScholarÖzdemir V. (2020c). Embracing veganism and animal sentience: The long view on Coronavirus outbreak. Istanbul: Agos Weekly. http://www.agos.com.tr/en/article/23573/embracing-veganism-and-animal-sentience-the-long-view-on-coronavirus-outbreak. Accessed June 21, 2020. Google ScholarÖzdemir V, Springer S, Garvey CK, and Bayram M. (2020). COVID-19 Health Technology Governance, Epistemic Competence, and the Future of Knowledge in an Uncertain World. OMICS 24 (in press); DOI: 10.1089/omi.2020.0088. Accessed June 21, 2020. Google ScholarRankin R. (2020). Hungary's emergency law ‘incompatible with being in EU’, say MEPs group. Measures voted on Monday will allow Viktor Orbán to rule by decree without time limits. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/31/hungary-emergency-law-incompatible-with-being-in-eu-say-meps-group-viktor-orban. Accessed June 21, 2020. Google ScholarRavetz J. (2016). How should we treat science's growing pains? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/jun/08/how-should-we-treat-sciences-growing-pains. Accessed June 21, 2020. Google ScholarRoy A. (2020). The pandemic is a portal. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/10d8f5e8-74eb-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca. Accessed June 21, 2020. Google ScholarSan Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (2012). https://sfdora.org. Accessed June 21, 2020. Google ScholarSarewitz D. (2016). Saving science. New Atlantis 49, 4–40. Google ScholarSclove R. (2020). Democracy and technology: An Interview with Richard Sclove from Beth Simone Noveck. Digit Gov Res Pract 1, Article 5. https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3368273. Accessed June 21, 2020. Google ScholarVon Schomberg R. (2019). Why responsible innovation? https://app.box.com/s/h8gib5ga6wtcv81dste3kjlhyz1zpu91. Accessed June 21, 2020. Google ScholarVon Schomberg R, and Hankins J. (2019). International Handbook on Responsible Innovation. A Global Resource. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. Google ScholarWade F. (2020). Judith Butler on the Violence of Neglect Amid a Health Crisis. A conversation with the theorist about her new book, The Force of Nonviolence, and the need for global solidarity in the pandemic World. The Nation May 13. https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/judith-butler-force-of-nonviolence-interview/. Accessed June 21, 2020. Google ScholarZhao F, Chen Y, Ge S, et al. (2014). A quantitative analysis of the mass media coverage of genomics medicine in China: A call for science journalism in the developing world. OMICS 18, 222–230. Link, Google ScholarAbbreviations UsedPPGplanetary public goodsFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byPublic Engagement and Global Governance of Science: Beyond Instrumentalism Vural Özdemir16 February 2023 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 27, No. 2Biopolitics of “Acquired Immunity”: The War Discourse and Feminist Response-Abilities in Art, Science, and Technology During COVID-19 Ebru Yetiskin11 October 2022 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 26, No. 10Decolonizing Knowledge Upstream: New Ways to Deconstruct and Fight Disinformation in an Era of COVID-19, Extreme Digital Transformation, and Climate Emergency Vural Özdemir and Simon Springer11 May 2022 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 26, No. 5Best Practice Guidance for Creation and Management of Innovations in Health care and Information and Communications Technologies Sebastian Schee Genannt Halfmann, Nikolaos Evangelatos, Emmanuel Kweyu, Alta van der Merwe, Kirsten Steinhausen, and Angela Brand7 February 2022 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 26, No. 2Disinformation as COVID-19's Twin Pandemic: False Equivalences, Entrenched Epistemologies, and Causes-of-Causes Simon Springer and Vural Özdemir7 February 2022 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 26, No. 2All Things Digital Transformation: Health Care, Disinformation, Big Data, and Death Vural Özdemir7 February 2022 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 26, No. 2Pharmacogenomics for Clinical Trials of COVID-19 Medicines: Why Is This Important Now? Semra Şardaş and Vural Özdemir8 November 2021 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 25, No. 11Thanatechnology and the Living Dead: New Concepts in Digital Transformation and Human-Computer Interaction Vural Özdemir, Simon Springer, Arif Yıldırım, Şehmus Biçer, Aslıgül Kendirci, Semra Şardaş, Hakan Kılıç, Nezih Hekim, Tanja Kunej, Kazım Yalçın Arga, Kevin Dzobo, Wei Wang, Marius Geanta, Angela Brand, and Mustafa Bayram13 July 2021 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 25, No. 7Human OMICs and Computational Biology Research in Africa: Current Challenges and Prospects Yosr Hamdi, Lyndon Zass, Houcemeddine Othman, Fouzia Radouani, Imane Allali, Mariem Hanachi, Chiamaka Jessica Okeke, Melek Chaouch, Maureen Bilinga Tendwa, Chaimae Samtal, Reem Mohamed Sallam, Nihad Alsayed, Michael Turkson, Samah Ahmed, Alia Benkahla, Lilia Romdhane, Oussema Souiai, Özlem Tastan Bishop, Kais Ghedira, Faisal Mohamed Fadlelmola, Nicola Mulder, and Samar Kamal Kassim8 April 2021 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 25, No. 4Digital Is Political: Why We Need a Feminist Conceptual Lens on Determinants of Digital Health Vural Özdemir8 April 2021 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 25, No. 4COVID-19 Is a Potential Bellwether to Inform Future Planetary Health Critical Policymaking Mehmet Ağirbaşli12 March 2021 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 25, No. 3From the Editor's Desk: Systems Science 2010–2020, and Post-COVID-19 Vural Özdemir10 February 2021 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 25, No. 2Growing Up in a Digital World with COVID-19 and Governing Health Futures: Who Guards the Guards? Vural Özdemir4 November 2020 | OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 24, No. 11 Volume 24Issue 9Sep 2020 InformationCopyright 2020, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersTo cite this article:René Von Schomberg and Vural Özdemir.Full Throttle: COVID-19 Open Science to Build Planetary Public Goods.OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology.Sep 2020.509-511.http://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2020.0118Published in Volume: 24 Issue 9: September 2, 2020Online Ahead of Print:July 6, 2020KeywordsCOVID-19open scienceresponsible innovationplanetary public goodscritical policy studiesPDF download