Frontiers Policy Labs asked prominent policymakers what they most need from scientists, and how they could most effectively assimilate scientific information. Please see the insights Anne Bucher shared with us.

Given the unprecedented times and the need to lay foundations for the new, post-COVID world, we are asking prominent policymakers what they most need from scientists, and how they could most effectively assimilate scientific information. This knowledge will enable us to develop insightful and actionable material for Policy Labs, which will lead to further science-based policy reforms.

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.

Ultimately, it will be up to science policy makers, funders, and the wider academic community to monitor the transition towards open access and to make the sharing of knowledge beyond borders the new normal. If we have any hope of solving some of the biggest challenges facing the planet, it is crucial that we do so.

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.

In the long term, the principle of solidarity in the accessibility of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and essential medical supplies should drive the global reform of pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response protocols. The EU could play a leading role in this process, through the recently established European Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA).

Making Sure Open Science Stays Open: 10 Years of Advocating Open Science Policy by our Editor in Chief, Jean-Claude Burgelman

Professor Linqi Zhang,

School of Medicine, Tsinghua University
Chair of Comprehensive AIDS Research Center, School of Medicine, Tsinghua University
Chair of Global Health and Infectious Diseases Center