Open Science in Three Acts: Foundations, Practice, and Implementation - Second Act

A broad understanding of the aims and objectives of the international open science movement was recently adopted with the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, expanding the focus of open science to include scientific knowledge, infrastructures, knowledge systems and the open engagement of societal actors. In response, recent discussions on science policy practice are shifting to the implementation of open science via national policies. While policy instruments to support some aspects of open science are well-studied, guidance on the emerging 'social' aspects of open science has lagged, prompting UNESCO to generate guidance. In this paper, several authors of the UNESCO Open Science Toolkit guidance document on 'Engaging societal actors in Open Science' synthesize the scholarly underpinnings behind its recommendations. This work draws upon a targeted search from academic, policy, and grey literature in the fields of open science and community engagement, with a special focus on citizen science, to derive guidance on how to overcome barriers to the uptake of societal engagement approaches. The results present building blocks of what an enabling environment for the open engagement of societal actors could look like, identifying key considerations and reflecting on opportunities and challenges for progressing and evaluating sound open engagement of societal actors into regional & national (open) science policies.

Open Science in Suicide Research Is Open for Business.

The integration of open science as a key pillar of responsible research and innovation has led it to become a hallmark of responsible research. However, ethical, social and regulatory challenges still remain about the implementation of an internationally- and multi-sector-recognised open science framework. In this Commentary, we discuss one important specific challenge that has received little ethical and sociological attention in the open science literature: the environmental impact of the digital infrastructure that enables open science. We start from the premise that a move towards an environmentally sustainable open science is a shared and valuable goal, and discuss two challenges that we foresee with relation to this. The first relates to questions about how to define what environmentally sustainable open science means and how to change current practices accordingly. The second relates to the infrastructure needed to enact environmentally sustainable open science ethical and social responsibilities through the open science ethics ecosystem. We argue that there are various ethical obstacles regarding how to responsibly balance any environmental impacts against the social value of open science, and how much one should be prioritised over the other. We call for all actors of the open science ethics ecosystem to engage in discussions about how to move towards open data and science initiatives that take into account the environmental impact of data and digital infrastructures. Furthermore, we call for ethics governance frameworks or policy-inscribed standards of practice to assist with this decision-making.

What is open science and under what conditions could it contribute towards addressing persistent development challenges? How could we re-imagine and enrich open science so that it is inclusive of local realities and a diversity of knowledge traditions? These are some of the questions that the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network (OCSDNet) is attempting to answer. In this paper, we provide the rationale and principles underlying OCSDnet, the conceptual and methodological frameworks guiding the research, and preliminary findings from the network's twelve globally diverse research projects. Instead of a “one-size-fits-all” approach to open science, our findings suggest that it is important to take into account the local dynamics and power structures that affect the ways in which individuals tend to collaborate (or not) within particular contexts. Despite the on-going resistance of powerful actors towards new forms of creating and sharing diverse knowledge, concluding evidence from the twelve research teams suggests that open science does indeed have an important role to play in facilitating inclusive collaboration and transformatory possibilities for development.

Editorials18 June 2013A Historic Moment for Open Science: The Yale University Open Data Access Project and MedtronicFREEHarlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM, Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, Cary P. Gross, MD, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, Beth Hodshon, JD, MPH, RN, Jessica D. Ritchie, MPH, Jeffrey B. Low, AB, and Richard Lehman, MDHarlan M. Krumholz, MD, SMFrom Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Hightown Surgery, Banbury, United Kingdom., Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHSFrom Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Hightown Surgery, Banbury, United Kingdom., Cary P. Gross, MDFrom Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Hightown Surgery, Banbury, United Kingdom., Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhDFrom Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Hightown Surgery, Banbury, United Kingdom., Beth Hodshon, JD, MPH, RNFrom Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Hightown Surgery, Banbury, United Kingdom., Jessica D. Ritchie, MPHFrom Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Hightown Surgery, Banbury, United Kingdom., Jeffrey B. Low, ABFrom Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Hightown Surgery, Banbury, United Kingdom., and Richard Lehman, MDFrom Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Hightown Surgery, Banbury, United Kingdom.Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-12-201306180-00009 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail This issue of Annals heralds a historic moment in the emerging era of open science. It features 2 systematic reviews on recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) (1, 2), an orthobiologic agent used in certain surgeries to promote bone growth that once achieved close to $1 billion in annual sales for Medtronic (Minneapolis, Minnesota). The reviews are based on patient-level data from all clinical trials conducted by Medtronic, which were shared through the Yale University Open Data Access (YODA) Project (3). With the publication of these reviews and the public release of its comprehensive reports, all of the clinical trial data for this product will now be made available by the YODA Project to other investigators for further analysis and examination.The YODA Project seeks to address the problem of unpublished and selectively published clinical evidence (4, 5). Nearly half of clinical trials are never published, and many that are have long delays in publication. Among those published, the information is often incomplete. Evidence suggests that some data are not missing at random and that the sharing of data, particularly patient-level data, often provides new insights that are consequential to patients.Currently, even the most conscientious physicians—those committed to knowing the latest literature—cannot fully understand the true risks and benefits of many treatments. Patients, therefore, are hampered in their ability to make truly informed decisions. In addition, missing data undermine evidence-based medicine, as recommendations based on the published literature, whether in systematic reviews, guidelines, book chapters, or online resources, are not based on the totality of the evidence. To improve the care of patients, clinical trial data, protocols, and results need to be made more widely available and shared for public benefit (6).Amid the current dialogue about open science in medicine, few imagined that such a prominent company would voluntarily make available all of its internal patient-level clinical research data on one of its major products. At a time when many companies express verbal support of open science, Medtronic joined the YODA Project and demonstrated what is possible. It is true that Medtronic was embroiled in a controversy about rhBMP-2 when it decided to share data (7). However, among the other companies that also encountered concerns about their products or the transparency of their research, Medtronic was unique in its response. Will the company's decision to release its data through the YODA Project be a footnote or a headline in the history of open clinical science? We hope that the action will reset expectations about the social contract between scientists and society.The YODA Project evolved as a collaborative endeavor guided by aspirations to promote open science, ensure good stewardship of clinical trial data, serve society and patients, and respect industry concerns. The YODA team approached Medtronic with a proposal to provide us with all of its relevant and de-identified rhBMP-2 patient-level clinical trial data. The agreement included 2 parts. First, the YODA team would contract with 2 independent research groups, selected through a competitive and open process, to perform comprehensive analyses of the data to evaluate the quality of the studies and synthesize evidence about the effectiveness and safety of rhBMP-2. The reviews in this issue are the result of those efforts. Second, after these reviews, the YODA team would make the data available to others to address additional potential scientific questions.Cooperation was the key to addressing the challenges of data sharing. We engaged a steering committee that included representation from academia, government, and industry. We convened an additional group of experts for a consensus meeting to develop appropriate methods and best practices. We also held a public comment period on our proposed approach. Although our contract with Medtronic gave us jurisdiction over the data, we sought a path that would navigate Medtronic's concerns about data misuse, false-positive inferences from data mining, legal ramifications, privacy issues, and commercial advantage for competitors. Among the results of these efforts was the development of a data release policy, available at http://medicine.yale.edu/core/projects/yodap/index.aspx.To be worthy of replication, the YODA Project needs to serve society and patients but should also produce benefits for the companies that fund the vast majority of research on medical products. One premise of the project is that companies can address their declining public perception by committing to data transparency and benefit from a culture of open science. Moreover, the open sharing of these data will ensure that conclusions drawn by any group can be checked by other individuals, mitigating concerns that competitors will seek to misuse the data.Will other companies follow suit? It is too early to say, but a recent announcement from GlaxoSmithKline (London, United Kingdom) about plans to share detailed clinical trial data is promising (8). Will clinicians be willing to show a preference for products from companies that share data? Will patients clamor for companies to be forthcoming with data? Will society reject claims that data are proprietary when they relate directly to decisions that people are making about products that are on the market?Our aspiration is for the YODA Project to provide a framework for the release of patient-level data and for the Medtronic release of data not to be an anomaly but a critical step forward in the rapidly changing culture of science. Ultimately, those of us who practice evidence-based medicine or conduct clinical research are the beneficiaries of the generosity of research participants. Participants expect that we will learn from their contributions and use the knowledge to help others. To do so requires that the data and findings from the research be widely and fully disseminated.The concerns about data sharing are relevant to the entire clinical research enterprise, far beyond industry (9, 10). Academia needs to reflect on and change its own culture, which is similarly reluctant to share data. We need to ensure that the current regulatory environment facilitates sharing of de-identified data while developing the technical solutions and the will to promote open science. We also need to find ways to reward those who share data, providing them a piece of the academic credit from the dividends of their work. Here we have a case in which the actions of industry should inspire academia to follow.The process that produced the reviews in this issue ensured that they were based on the totality of the evidence. That we have established a new standard should be a headline. Let us resolve to have this effort be the first step in the next era of cooperation among industry, academia, clinicians, and the public—one that rewards data sharing, promotes open science, and ultimately makes it untenable to obscure data relevant to the risks and benefits of approved medical products.Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SMJoseph S. Ross, MD, MHSCary P. Gross, MDYale University School of MedicineNew Haven, ConnecticutEzekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhDPerelman School of Medicine, University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, PennsylvaniaBeth Hodshon, JD, MPH, RNJessica D. Ritchie, MPHJeffrey B. Low, ABYale University School of MedicineNew Haven, ConnecticutRichard Lehman, MDHightown SurgeryBanbury, United Kingdom

Open Science has been a relevant topic since the first introduction of open access repositories. Even though it has been 17 years, Current Research Information Systems (CRISs) are still being adopted and implemented to transfer innovation and research to industry and society. European Open Science cloud aims to solve problems with interoperability and fragmentation of CRISs and to achieve common standards for Open Science implementation in EU.Several reports show the current state of transition to Open Science in European Countries such as European University Association (EUA) report. However, the current state of research assessment in Balkan universities is not included in most of the surveys. The paper aims to fill this gap by investigating current situation with Open Science adoption in Bulgarian and Albanian Universities. The structure of the paper is very similar to EUA report in order to facilitate a comparison of these universities to other universities in Europe.It presents the spread of open access science; the state of progress to make research publications and data open, as well as challenges Bulgarian and Albanian university academics face to have an open approach to research assessment. In conclusion, it is shown that Bulgarian and Albanian researchers fully support Open Science and Open Access practices but most of the time they lack incentives and/or Open Access mandates on their universities. Both Bulgarian and Albanian institutions are still at the early stages of transition towards Open Access but very keen to support Open Science as the future of Research.

What should a university do to support citizen science initiatives within an open science context, and to assist and facilitate researchers in performing effective citizen science? Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) has developed an open science program that includes, among other projects, citizen science. However, performing citizen science is not a straightforward task. For the people designing and managing citizen science projects, it demands appropriate knowledge, understanding, and experience of the field, as well as knowledge of the practical implementation of citizen science and open science. This requires a deeper understanding of which extra-academic skills, collaborations, rewards, and recognitions are needed for a citizen science project. Therefore, we used a local, hydrological citizen science project, “Delft Measures Rain,” as a case-study, implementing citizen science methods and the TU Delft Open Science principles. By means of this case-study, we identify key tools and facilitation needs to assist researchers within TU Delft to perform effective citizen science and open science. This paper shows how the various stakeholders (i.e., researchers, citizens, civil servants, and NGO’s) can benefit from performing participatory research implementing citizen science and open science principles. We list 10 key elements, encompassing tools, facilitation, and infrastructures that universities can provide for their researchers to stimulate and support the implementation and execution of successful, legally sound, and open citizen science. This case study shows that with appropriate and extra-academic knowledge, tools, collaborations, rewards, and recognitions, citizen science can deliver what it promises and be of great value to universities and open science in general.

<p>The goals of open science include easy reproducibility of research results, transparency of research methods and re-usability of artefacts, e.g. data, code, and graphics. Consequently, open science is expected to foster scientific collaboration and sustainability of research, as it enables building on each others' methods and results for many years and decades to come.</p><p>Here we report about our collective attempts in the last 4-10 years of taking open science to the extreme by using exclusively open formats, open-source software, sharing all stages of our work online and recording workflows and provenance of code and data. Most of our analyses are carried out in Jupyter Notebooks, which are all shared online through gitlab. In these notebooks and our python-analyses, we integrate the python package essm for transparent and easily reproducible mathematical derivations. For more complex analyses, including large model runs, we use the tool Renku of the Swiss Data Science Center in order to record workflows and provenance of code and data.</p><p>Find out where we succeeded, where we failed, what we gained and what we lost in pursuing open science to the extreme. Hear about the views and experiences with open science at the undergraduate, postgraduate, postdoc, engineer and senior researcher level. Eventually, we will also report about what we are still missing for entirely reproducible, verifiable, and reusable open science. We hope we can foster a debate about good open science practices, and how we can remove obstacles that are still in our way.</p>

This article seeks to address issues of power and inequality in Open Science discourses, based on the research findings of the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network (OCSDNet), an international research network that between 2014 and 2017 studied whether, and under what conditions, open science contributed to the effective application of research towards sustainable development. The network approached Open Science from a Global South perspective and collectively produced a set of values that ought to be at the foundation of a more inclusive and equitable practice of Open Science. However it also found that these values are currently missing in the most prominent Open Science policies. This article prompts the question: what assumptions are embedded in Open Science policies - whose interests are they serving and in turn whose interests are they neglecting? With this provocation it seeks to critically question Open Science policies by offering three alternative ways to think about Open Science from the perspective of Global South grassroots communities.

Background: "Open science" is an umbrella term describing various aspects of transparent and open science practices. The adoption of practices at different levels of the scientific process (e.g., individual researchers, laboratories, institutions) has been rapidly changing the scientific research landscape in the past years, but their uptake differs from discipline to discipline. Here, we asked to what extent journals in the field of sleep research and chronobiology encourage or even require following transparent and open science principles in their author guidelines. Methods: We scored the author guidelines of a comprehensive set of 27 sleep and chronobiology journals, including the major outlets in the field, using the standardised Transparency and Openness (TOP) Factor. The TOP Factor is a quantitative summary of the extent to which journals encourage or require following various aspects of open science, including data citation, data transparency, analysis code transparency, materials transparency, design and analysis guidelines, study pre-registration, analysis plan pre-registration, replication, registered reports, and the use of open science badges. Results: Across the 27 journals, we find low values on the TOP Factor (median [25 th, 75 th percentile] 3 [1, 3], min. 0, max. 9, out of a total possible score of 29) in sleep research and chronobiology journals. Conclusions: Our findings suggest an opportunity for sleep research and chronobiology journals to further support recent developments in transparent and open science by implementing transparency and openness principles in their author guidelines.

Background: "Open science" is an umbrella term describing various aspects of transparent and open science practices. The adoption of practices at different levels of the scientific process (e.g., individual researchers, laboratories, institutions) has been rapidly changing the scientific research landscape in the past years, but their uptake differs from discipline to discipline. Here, we asked to what extent journals in the field of sleep research and chronobiology encourage or even require following transparent and open science principles in their author guidelines. Methods: We scored the author guidelines of a comprehensive set of 27 sleep and chronobiology journals, including the major outlets in the field, using the standardised Transparency and Openness (TOP) Factor. The TOP Factor is a quantitative summary of the extent to which journals encourage or require following various aspects of open science, including data citation, data transparency, analysis code transparency, materials transparency, design and analysis guidelines, study pre-registration, analysis plan pre-registration, replication, registered reports, and the use of open science badges. Results: Across the 27 journals, we find low values on the TOP Factor (median [25 th, 75 th percentile] 3 [1, 3], min. 0, max. 9, out of a total possible score of 29) in sleep research and chronobiology journals. Conclusions: Our findings suggest an opportunity for sleep research and chronobiology journals to further support recent developments in transparent and open science by implementing transparency and openness principles in their author guidelines.

Purpose The article uses the Marxist base/superstructure model to frame the current dominant form of open science (OS), presenting a critical analysis drawing on policy documents, empirical examples, and mainstream and critical research. The argument focuses on how the project understands its relation to openness, society, science and information and communication technologies (ICTs). Theoretical concepts as openness ideology, cognitive and academic capitalism, and agonistic pluralism, are used for the analysis and development of an alternative OS framework. Design/methodology/approach A conceptual analysis and ideology critique of OS is conducted within a general Marxist framework. In a subsequent step an alternative form of OS is developed with the help of Chantal Mouffe’s theoretical concept agonistic pluralism. The article’s argument is structured by 4 propositions and 2 proposals. Findings The current dominant OS framework naturalises commercial enclosures in relation to applied science/open innovation and displays a socially fragmented character in relation to citizen science (CS). This aligns with the openness ideology that downplays the social effect of enclosures related to data, information and knowledge. OS’s focus on standardised applied science accommodates social sciences and humanities under natural sciences’ umbrella. The critique of which, leads to the argument for a political OS, connected to social movements. This alternative is developed around Mouffe’s concept of agonistic pluralism and could counteract the commodification of academia and reinvigorate it with diverse forms of applied research. Originality/value The article delivers a critical and systematic analysis founded in the Marxist base/superstructure model that frames and combines conceptual elements rarely combined in Library and Information Science’s STS-oriented literature. It problematises the conditions for scholarly research under capitalism’s current cognitive phase and identifies positive potentialities that hitherto have eluded the attention from the wider international Library and Information Science community. Through this, the article contributes to a discussion about what kind of (open) science society needs.

This paper focuses on the role of national-level infrastructure in promoting open science principles, with a specific emphasis on Slovenia. It presents the latest measures implemented within the country to facilitate open science practices.The first part of the paper explores the specific measures adopted in Slovenia to promote open science. It highlights the ongoing development of regulations to implement scientific research following open science principles. The Slovenian Scientific Research and Innovation Activities Act (ZZrID) and the Resolution on the Slovenian Scientific Research and Innovation Strategy 2030 (ReZrIS30) strongly emphasise open science and encompass various measures. The paper discusses the accessibility of research data addressed by the ZZrID and the Decree on the implementation of scientific research work in accordance with the principles of open science. Furthermore, it outlines upcoming actions in education and infrastructure solutions, as outlined in the Open Science Action Plan.The second part of the paper delves into the role of the Academic and Research Network of Slovenia (ARNES), the Slovenian national research and education network (NREN). ARNES has played a pivotal role in the construction of two new national data centres dedicated to the permanent storage of research data. The paper analyses the benefits of these national solutions, which enhance infrastructure accessibility, simplify researchers' work, and provide a more efficient and secure environment for research organisations to store their data. The development of data storage services and the construction of data centres take into consideration existing best practices and collaboration with researchers and research organisations. The solutions offered by the data centres will support existinguniversity repositories and align with the objectives outlined in the Open Science Action Plan. The integration of research funding and evaluation services into a centralised platform will be thoughtfully considered, taking into account the requirements of the research community. A key objective is to enable the implementation of services and infrastructure in accordance with OpenAIRE, where ARNES will play a pivotal role. As a mandated organisation in the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) and being in touch with best practices in the EU area as an NREN, ARNES is well-positioned to contribute to this endeavour.The paper also highlights the broader objective of improving research quality, efficiency, and responsiveness within the national open science ecosystem. It discusses the establishment of the Slovenian Open Science Community (SSOZ) as part of the tripartite European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) event, making Slovenia one of the pioneering countries in the European Union. The SSOZ, along with Slovenian representatives in the EOSC, has already addressed challenges related to the permanent preservation of research data, which will be comprehensively discussed in relation to the new data centres and associated activities.Additionally, there is a growing demand for education on repository usage and infrastructure upgrades. The Slovenian Open Science Community serves as a unifying platform for all major universities and research institutions in Slovenia, fostering collaboration among its members. It encompasses participants from various initiatives, such as the NI4OS project, which aims to promote the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) at a regional level. Furthermore, the community includes stakeholders from the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) and similar European and institutional initiatives dedicated to advancing open science principles.Drawing from the experience of the case study, the paper critically highlights how the national infrastructure can simplify researchers' work. It emphasises the role of data centres in fostering sustainable and long-term data storage solutions aligned with the principles of open science. As an NREN, ARNES already manages public research infrastructure and offers solutions that facilitate research, such as data sharing and access to EuroHPC's supercomputing infrastructure. The establishment of new data centres by ARNES will significantly enhance the infrastructure for open science in Slovenia, providing primary conditions for implementing open science principles in research work. The implementation of planned professional training programs focused on utilising the infrastructure, along with workshops on open science organised by the Central Technical Library at the University of Ljubljana specifically for researchers in Slovenia, will serve as essential catalysts for enabling research activities that align with the principles of open science. With the infrastructure in place, these initiatives will empower researchers with the necessary knowledge and skills to embrace open science practices effectively.

Where is Community Involvement in Open Science? A Commentary on "(Why) Are Open Research Practices the Future for the Study of Language Learning?"

Watch the VIDEO.The University of Edinburgh is a large, research-intensive, civic university at the heart of Scotland’s capital. As a member of the League of European Research Universities (LERU), the Universitas 21 consortium and the Russell Group, we value and cultivate partnerships and collaborations as second nature, and seek to be recognised among the world’s top universities. These are interesting times for us, not least from Open (and data-driven) Science perspectives. In May 2018 the LERU Rectors Assembly assembled in Edinburgh, where they collectively endorsed LERU’s Roadmap for Open Science; a movement which requires considerable alterations to traditional researcher behaviours, and increasingly balancing intellectual investment and ownership of research with “the common good.” More recently, in August the UK Prime Minister and the Scottish First Minister met at the University to launch the Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region Deal, a £1.3bn investment package designed to increase the contribution of research, data analytics expertise and graduate skills to the region’s economy, ultimately aiming to make Edinburgh “the data capital of Europe.” The timing of these developments provides a challenge, however, as Edinburgh, Scotland and the rest of the UK prepare to leave the European Union in the Spring of 2019. In an ideal world Science and Scholarship would be independent of political shifts, focused as they are on ideals of universal truth, but the means via which research is funded, performed and disseminated are necessarily grounded in political reality. Edinburgh’s default responses to the changes and challenges we face are to influence them positively – or mitigate them proactively – wherever we can, and to prepare ourselves for their impact where we cannot do otherwise. The University’s newly integrated Research Data Support (RDS) team is a cornerstone of our institutional Digital Research Services. We aim to provide holistic, responsive, tailored and researcher-focused support to the University community, helping collectively meet contemporary expectations in scholarly communications, including Open Science requirements to make data (and code) available alongside publications to enable their conclusions to be reproduced. The RDS has published a Roadmap for ongoing development, and alongside other infrastructural and support units such as the Scholarly Communications and Research Information Systems functions – and together with the externally focused infrastructure, advocacy and skills development centres that Edinburgh hosts, such as the Digital Curation Centre and the Software Sustainability Institute – we are a key component of the University’s broader Open Science strategy. In this presentation we will describe and discuss Edinburgh’s Open Science environment and approaches, within the broader landscape of changing expectations, political risks and scientific and societal opportunities. We will discuss the benefits and challenges of Open approaches within and beyond the Sciences, and the challenges involved in turning the European Commission’s “as open as possible, as closed as necessary” dictum into reality, including outreach and skills development activities. Finally we will look at the University’s current RDS Roadmap, and consider how this might develop and adapt in the exciting (and potentially turbulent) years ahead.