UNESCO recommendation on open science: the promise of open science
Frank Miedema
Professor of Open Science
Vice Rector Research, Utrecht University, Chair Utrecht University Open Science Program
Reading the UNESCO recommendation on open science, I was immediately and totally caught. Not, in the first place, because of the recommendations they provide regarding what the diverse actors and agents in the larger global system must do to promote the transition to open science—UNESCO’s recommendations are quite logical and similar to those we have seen in various reports from the EU, EUA, and LERU, as well as in the various national plans for open science published to date. The UNESCO report is also not very remarkable with respect to its description of the specific problems of the current academic science system. The recommendations do not contain a table with major issues but, in a subtle way, the issues surface in the course of reading the document. In the document there is no blaming and shaming of the actors involved. There are, though, recommendations for change in the system, to mitigate the particular problems that are discussed . Of course, here and there, a critical voice can be heard, but in general, the problems are described as the problems of the system at large. The report describes, with a neutral tone, a global research system that has, as it were, organically evolved over the past decades in academia, but which is not optimally tweaked to address the spectrum of major needs, societally, globally, nationally, nor regionally.
What is, in my mind, rather unique, and the reason I was immediately and totally caught when I started reading the document, is the Preamble. The Preamble is UNESCO’s promise of open science. The Preamble, at just the right level of abstraction, describes the higher purpose of the transition to the practices of open science. In the Preamble, more than twenty short but very strong and convincing statements are listed, describing the benefits of open science for science and society, for scientists, and for the public—across the globe. It is a carefully built text that explains clearly and concisely why we must transition to open science. The Preamble is a testimony to the higher purpose of open science that does not immediately and explicitly lose itself in the enabling technologies and actions on the themes of open access, FAIR/open data, public engagement, and recognition, and rewards. This wonderful approach to “the why and the who” is consistently applied throughout the whole report. Open science practices and the associated enabling technologies are then discussed in depth, including their values and the ethical principles that ought to guide leadership and the academic culture. Only then are the seven recommendations for actions discussed.
Why is this so strong and special? Because it starts with a “why”, with forward-looking statements on the benefits and gains it will bring for science and society, and later, nearly “en passant”, as if they are totally logical and beyond debate, mentions the various
changes that must be made in the transition to open science. Obviously, those working on the transition within various institutes feel that the recommendations do not emphasize explicitly enough the obstacles and problems, or the pushback and resistance to change in the power games that are at play in academia and society. UNESCO’s call for open science clearly states the principles and objectives but rightly leaves plenty of room for how open science will take shape in the coming years, depending on the different national, socio-economic, and academic cultures around the world.
Finally, only a couple of years ago, a critical analysis of the various problems in research was needed to create awareness and a ‘case for change’ for transition to open science. The current narrative takes that case for change more or less for granted. The UNESCO recommendation on open science hence demonstrates that the transition to open science has been definitively set in motion around the globe.
