Unlocking the Door to Faster Innovation Through Transparent Open Science
I think of open science as a movement; a set of practices that aim to make scientific research, data, and dissemination accessible to all levels of society. To achieve this, it requires that we make all stages of the scientific process transparent and accessible to others. This includes publishing open-access journal articles, sharing data openly, making methods and protocols open, and generally promoting collaboration and openness between scientists.
Why does it matter that science becomes more open? As a physician-scientist and an immigrant from Ghana, I experienced firsthand during my training the barriers researchers in the developing world face in accessing scientific knowledge locked behind expensive paywalls. Growing up, my medical training lacked access to crucial research published in prestigious journals we could not afford. This inaccessibility of knowledge meant that I and scientists from under-resourced areas could not effectively contribute to knowledge on areas already poorly studied by the global north. It, therefore, matters that science becomes more open because this will accelerate the global pace of discovery and innovation. When scientists share their work openly, others can build directly on top of it rather than repeating the same foundational work.
There are several recent examples of the benefits of open science to buttress this point. Google’s release of the LLMs they developed, like LamDA in 2021, allowed many other researchers to build on their foundational work in natural language processing. This open sharing spurred remarkable advancements in the field, including creating models like GPT-3 and Claude, which have demonstrated impressive language capabilities. Google understood that releasing LamDA publicly would lead to faster collective progress on LLMs across organizations. Similarly, the open sharing of mRNA vaccine research and technology helped enable the rapid development of highly effective COVID-19 vaccines by companies like Moderna and Pfizer. Thanks to scientists openly publishing their mRNA work over decades, vaccines were created in an unprecedented efficient manner, saving millions of lives during the pandemic. If that foundational mRNA science had been kept secret, it may have taken much longer to make these breakthrough vaccines at the scale needed. It is, therefore, important that the gatekeepers of the scientific community reflect introspectively and assess if their actions are truly positive for global scientific advancement.
Until the scientific community becomes more open, public trust in scientific work will continue to diminish. Misinformation will take root, as was seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is dangerous for scientific funding as a good portion of scientific funding comes from taxpayer-funded agencies. Access to papers and data also allows many more people to engage with and benefit from scientific findings, enabling the verification and reproducibility of scientific findings and preventing scientific misinformation. For example, in July 2023, a team of researchers published a preprint paper claiming to have discovered a new material that could superconduct at room temperature. This would have been a significant breakthrough, as superconductivity is currently only possible at very low temperatures. The paper quickly went viral and generated much excitement in the scientific community. However, many scientists were also skeptical, as many previous claims of room-temperature superconductivity had turned out to be false. What made the claim more difficult to believe was the fact that the research team did not provide much detail about their experimental methods. This made it difficult for other scientists to verify their results. In the weeks following the publication of the preprint paper, several other research groups worldwide attempted to replicate the results. None of these groups were able to successfully create a room-temperature superconductor. In August 2023, the a revised version of the preprint paper that made the claim was released. In this revised version, the teamacknowledged that their results could not be reproduced by other research groups. They also admitted that they had made some mistakes in their experimental methods. Without open scientific scrutiny, misinformation would have prevailed. Open science is, therefore, essential for building trust in science. When the public can see how science is done and how results are verified, they are more likely to trust the scientific community.
Despite the obvious benefits of open science, there are still many barriers. This includes cultural barriers like the fear of getting scooped or losing competitive advantage. But the benefits are too great to ignore. This is why funding agencies and journals must begin to require and reward open science practices. The goal of the scientific community should be to shift academic incentives that value open scientific knowledge sharing over secrecy. Ultimately, we must view scientific knowledge as a public good that we all have a moral imperative to share, not hoard for personal gain. Science will progress faster if we cooperate. The prevailing mindset of secrecy and competition that makes researchers hesitant to share work openly should be challenged.
Additionally, the lack of data standards and sharing platforms poses a challenge. Researchers need more tools, time, and incentives for seamless open data. Some scientists also avoid sharing over the fear of exposing errors and limitations, jeopardizing funding and publications. Furthermore, academic publishing favors profit over open dissemination by restricting access via costly subscriptions and claiming authors’ copyrights. Despite paying for access, universities limit sharing beyond campus, enriching publishers while restricting knowledge flow and consolidating power in Western institutions. These barriers will persist until academic incentives like funding, jobs, tenure, and promotion actively reward open science.
To drive broader adoption of open science, stakeholders across academia, Government, industry, and non-profits must implement policies and structures that incentivize sharing. Grant funding agencies should require open-access data and methods sections for funded research. Journals and conferences should favor and reward open-access publishing models while retaining rigorous peer review. Research institutions can enact top-down policies to make open science integral to their organizational cultures. Additionally, user-friendly platforms and tools must be built to make finding, sharing, and analyzing open data seamless for scientists. Importantly, incentives and academic rewards systems need restructuring to value openness — evaluations for hiring, tenure, promotion, and funding should take open science practices into account. With coordinated efforts along these lines, barriers can be lowered. If adopted widely, open science has vast potential to accelerate discovery and maximize research value for scientists and the public. The time for change is now.
