The human rights case can be made for Open Science – this has been made clear by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its General Comment No. 25 on science and economic, social, and cultural rights. In this this much-awaited interpretation of the so-called right to science under Art. 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Committee made clear that Open Science forms part of the right to science in the digital era. Released during the Covid-19 pandemic, the timing could not have been better, for the pandemic not only illustrated in unprecedented ways the importance of science in today’s world, but also the advantages of open research practices in speeding up scientific discovery. Yet, does this legal development mean that access to scientific data and content can now be enforced before courts via the right to science? A closer look reveals that important hurdles in claiming Open Science via the right to science remain. In this short contribution, our aim is to highlight some selected challenges of implementing and adjudicating open research practices via the right to science.  

Sandrine Dixson-Declève rightly denounces the slowness of the pace of work and the deliberations of the COP process in face of the climate crisis. She also says, again rightly so, that the science of climate change is clear, hence the sluggishness of the decision-making process on climate change appears particularly striking. I am paraphrasing Dixson-Declève’s piece, but I think I have it right: we need to act yesterday, we know enough and the current process is not fit for the outcomes we need. If my reading of her piece is correct, I fully endorse her plea for a decision-making process that does justice to the urgent and determined action we must take: reversing the course of adverse changes in our life-supporting climate system.

The International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA) was formed in 2014 under the sponsorship of the International Council of Science’s (ICSU, now the International Science Council (ISC)). Over 220 practitioners and academics at the science-policy interface from more than 40 countries, both developing and developed, attended an inaugural meeting in Auckland. The discussion focused on identifying the issues that challenged the provision of effective science advice to governments, a process which was very patchy across the globe. Ten years later, INGSA held its fifth global conference in Kigali, Rwanda.

Are the climate talks and COP (Conference of Parties) processes failing humanity? Sandrine Dixson-Declève, Co-president of The Club of Rome, recently warned that we are both failing on the Paris Agreement and to deliver action at the speed and scale necessary to avert the worst effects of global warming. She urges the United Nations to shift gears and radically transform the COP process, to ensure a safe and just future for humanity. If we’re going to avoid failure on climate, then safeguarding the global commons must be a focus.

Animal testing has long been a controversial issue in the European Union (EU), with growing public concern over the ethical and scientific limitations of relying on animal models for chemical safety assessments. Despite being seen as a “gold standard” in research and safety assessment, animal studies have limited applicability to human health, and are difficult to replicate due to poor reporting procedures and large variability.

Despite COP's mission to prevent dangerous climate change and keep global warming below 2°C, there is a stark gap between its goals and the inertia it reinforces among member states. We are failing on the Paris Agreement and delivering climate action too slowly to avert the worst impacts of global warming. The United Nations must shift gears to focus all efforts on meeting global goals by 2050, which requires a rapid and radical transformation of the COP process to ensure a safe climate future for humanity.

Even as enthusiasm grows over the potential of artificial intelligence (AI), concerns have arisen in equal measure about a possible domination of the field by Big Tech. Such an outcome would replicate many of the mistakes of preceding decades, when a handful of companies accumulated unprecedented market power and often acted as de facto regulators in the global digital ecosystem.

Throughout the second half of the 20th century academic freedom has developed in many societies into a widely acknowledged and legally protected fundamental value of academia. This coincided with the recognition of academic freedom as a prerequisite for well-functioning open and democratic societies that adhere to the rule of law. An important condition for this role of academic freedom to be realized is that academics use it to acquire, generate and apply knowledge in ways that are essential for their societies.

In democratic societies, policymakers and technocrats are entrusted with promoting the well-being of the public they serve. Despite the consensus that public health is an essential component of social well-being, investments in this area are often seen sidelined in favor of other sectors reflecting a fragmented approach to policymaking.

Historically universities have played a unique role in society. As institutions they are inimitably placed to bring insight and capabilities from across a broad range of disciplines to contribute significantly to their locale, and to the world’s largest and most significant and impactful challenges - whether that is environmental sustainability transforming healthcare and education, or building a future that is more equitable. Universities are distinct from other sectors (even those that undertake research and learning activities), in the way that they can explore topics, make discoveries and offer perspectives and insight in the immediate and longer term.

Open science, in particular the open access publishing of research and the widespread sharing of data, have been depicted as key to combatting the COVID-19 pandemic – not least in the unprecedented speed with which vaccines were developed. However, there is little empirical evidence to back those assertions.

With a new study titled “Open Science – Crucial for effective COVID research?” I sought to explore whether, and to what extent, open science practices influenced the speed of COVID research. I ran a literature review, surveyed more than 200 COVID researchers, and held qualitative interviews with six scientists.

There is an essential distinction that needs to be made between science and science systems. It may seem semantic, but it is not. When we conflate these words, we risk undermining the place of science. We live in a world where trust in science appears less certain, where science denial has become an ideological badge, where science is undermined by disinformation. Its position relative to other knowledge systems can be questioned and debated.

The human rights case can be made for Open Science – this has been made clear by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its General Comment No. 25 on science and economic, social, and cultural rights. In this this much-awaited interpretation of the so-called right to science under Art. 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Committee made clear that Open Science forms part of the right to science in the digital era. Released during the Covid-19 pandemic, the timing could not have been better, for the pandemic not only illustrated in unprecedented ways the importance of science in today’s world, but also the advantages of open research practices in speeding up scientific discovery. Yet, does this legal development mean that access to scientific data and content can now be enforced before courts via the right to science? A closer look reveals that important hurdles in claiming Open Science via the right to science remain. In this short contribution, our aim is to highlight some selected challenges of implementing and adjudicating open research practices via the right to science.  

The analysis presented here highlights following Schumpeter’s insights, the need for an open industrial transformation approach less based on old, national industrial policy notions but adopting a new vision on the role of place-based industrial innovation in strengthening Europe’s long-term resilience to political, economic and technological change.

One can only hope that the war imposed by Russia on Ukraine will be brought to an end swiftly, that reconstruction of Ukraine as a sovereign state moves forward unimpeded, and that Russia, with its population of 140 million, will make earnest attempts to rectify its pariah status and re-join the rules-based international community.

When or if this will happen is not clear, but the EU should nonetheless be well prepared for the eventuality. This is true for all policy domains, but in this note we will focus upon the science and technology programmes of the EU and make some suggestions on how to use the instruments of science diplomacy for rebuilding the Ukrainian science system and reintegrating Russian scientists in the world science system, including the support of renewed scientific cooperation between Russia and Ukraine.

Data and Artificial Intelligence (AI) are strategic assets for any society. They require global regulation and an International Data and AI agency. We would like to instigate a series of responses from a broad range of stakeholders to this global challenge

The world faces some stark, geopolitical challenges. To tackle them we will need to draw on new, multilateral systems of cooperation and collaboration. A fundamental redesign of these multilateral systems is overdue – one that prioritizes the protection of the planet, together with humanity’s very survival. To succeed, any such redesign must optimize our ability to share, understand and apply scientific insight and evidence. The application of that scientific insight and evidence is the starting point for science diplomacy.

Realizing effective scientific collaboration among nations is not an easy task. The trends we identified in the first paper of this series are a snapshot of the landscape of scientific collaboration. Taken together, they shine light on specific areas requiring attention to maximize the benefits of collaboration. While the dynamic nature of research and the complexity of the geo-political landscape makes it challenging to point to any single factor or policy that a country, company, or funder could change to support effective scientific collaboration, some general pathways to supporting international collaboration are clear.

We need more idealism in science and science policy to find solutions to challenges. If we restrict ourselves to what is tangible, known and established today, there is a risk that possible solutions to ‘wicked’ challenges that contribute to enriched and thriving individuals, societies, and their natural ecosystems could be missed. But if we ask, ‘what if?’, we introduce a capacity for idealism that opens up opportunities for creative critical thinking and imagination.

Frontiers Policy Labs participated in Euroscience Open Forum 2022, the largest biennial interdisciplinary meeting on science and innovation in Europe, for and with society.