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.

The pandemic has made us aware of the importance of institutional action to protect individual and public health not only in times of crisis. More importantly, the need for preparedness in view of possible future health emergencies. Over the past two years, awareness of the importance of prevention in healthcare has grown. We have realised that health begins before the onset of a disease and presumes the ability to prevent (and predict) the effects of the ecological crisis on our lives..

War has often been used as a metaphor for health and disease, as in the “war on cancer”. However, to my knowledge, the prevention of poor health and premature death has never been used as a metaphor for prevention of war. In this short article, I propose that the principles behind public health models can be useful for preventing and “treating” war.

The Covid-19 crisis has raised many questions about other infectious diseases and ailments that still lack appropriate medical treatments. Many of these questions involve drug discovery and development, both in the private sector and in academic settings. It is common to see questions on social networks and blogs such as, “Is it possible to develop affordable new drugs quickly?”, “Why do so many new drugs seem to come from non-EU countries?” and “What lies ahead?”

Food and energy prices are rising, economies in Europe are stretched due to the lack, or potential future lack, of fuels (particularly gas), food (particularly wheat and animal feed), and fertilisers, along with other materials, such as the metals needed for energy transition or other transition-related needs.

War is an extremely polarizing phenomenon that divides nuances into black and white. As Russian forces rolled into Ukraine, the Western response was to shut Russia out of virtually all partnerships and areas of cooperation. It seemed a justified reaction to a country seeking to reintroduce war into Europe after decades of peace. But, as inexcusable as the actions of the Putin regime are, we risk being blind to the nuances of the situation as we respond. It is difficult to employ rationality in times of war, when emotion takes the driver’s seat, but it is nonetheless crucial to ask the following questions in assessing our response: Do these actions stifle the Kremlin’s war objectives? Do they help Ukraine? What is the impact on humanity at large?

Frontiers Policy Labs spoke with Wim Thiery, an associate professor at the University of Brussels, a climate scientist who uses computer models to project how climate extremes will evolve in the future. Dr. Thiery, who was named one of Europe’s “30 Under 30” by Forbes, is a contributing author on two past IPCC reports and his research is featured in the report on climate change impacts that recently came out.

The EU is revamping its interest to get all member states to increase their Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product(GDP) from the current average of 2.2% to 3%. The rational for this policy is based on the belief that European technology industries will lag behind those in other countries unless more innovation is generated. Investment (GERD) is seen as a limiting factor and should be corrected. But is the premise for this policy as simple as the equation; money + research= Innovation? I argue that research is a necessary but not sufficient ingredient in the mix required to have better economic outcomes.

There is a long history of government intervention in energy markets. For both political and economic reasons, countries have always subsidized the production of cheap and abundant fossil energy. Over the last hundred years, the availability of inexpensive fossil-fuel energy has been a hallmark of the growth of most countries—including both the industrial growth of the last century and the information-intensive growth of our current era.

If one million scientists (approximately 10% of the world’s active science population in public service) committed two hours per week to science engagement with and for society (about 5% of their working time), this would create approximately 100 million hours/year dedicated to achieving science that engages meaningfully with policy and global decision makers. Those hours could catalyse a global butterfly effect that could carry into the future.

The question underpinning data sharing should never be whether data should be made openly accessible. The problem of data access merely distracts from the real issue with data governance, which is who decides how data is used and under which conditions. This is the key question today for both democracy and research. Answering it requires significant collective action.