Revisiting Open Science from the Perspective of Ethical Standards

Open science and ethics

Authors

  • Zabta Khan Shinwari Department of Plant Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan
  • Ali Talha Khalil Department of Pathology, Lady Reading Hospital (MTI), Peshawar, Pakistan

Keywords:

Open science, Replicability, Anonymity, Risks, Benefits

Abstract

Narrative of open science is becoming popular as the idea of openness relates to the availability, accessibility, transparency and replicability of the scientific data and processes. At the downside, open science, raises several ethical questions. Openness in sensitive data can lead to its misuse by compromising anonymity and confidentiality, or may be used for other nefarious purposes, besides being the costly nature of the open models. Extensive debates and dialogues among the policy experts, scientists and bioethicists in the context of weighing risks vs benefits may help in devising balanced strategies.

References

J.E. Grahe., K. Cuccolo., D.C. Leighton, and L.D.Cramblet Alvarez. Open science promotes diverse, just, and sustainable research and educational outcomes. Psychology Learning & Teaching 19(1):5-20 (2020).

C. Allen, and D.M. Mehler. Open science challenges,benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLoS biology 17(5): p. e3000246 (2019).

T. Dienlin., N. Johannes., N.D. Bowman., P.K.Masur., S. Engesser., A.S. Kümpel., J. Lukito., L.M.Bier., R. Zhang., B.K. Johnson, and R. Huskey. An agenda for open science in communication. Journal of Communication (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz052

V. Forster., Eight Fraudulent Cancer Research Studies Contained The Same Copied Results. How Does This Happen? Forbes (2020). https://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriaforster/2020/06/09/eight-fraudulent-cancer-research-studiescontained-same-copied-results-how-does-thishappen/#606f81b41b5b

P. Pantziarka, and L. Meheus. Journal retractions in oncology: a bibliometric study. Future Oncology 15(31): p. 3597-3608 (2019).

H. Ledford, and R. Van Noorden. High-profile coronavirus retractions raise concerns about data oversight. Nature 2020. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01695-w

C. Piller, and K. Servick. Two elite medical journals retract coronavirus papers over data integrity questions. Science 2020. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/two-elite-medical-journalsretract-coronavirus-papers-over-data-integrity

P. Kraker., D. Leony., W. Reinhardt and G. Beham. The case for an open science in technology enhanced learning. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning 3(6), 643-654 (2011).

N.R. Haddaway., Open Synthesis: on the need for evidence synthesis to embrace Open Science. Environmental evidence 7(1): p. 1-5 (2018).

S. Das., T. Glatard., C. Rogers., J. Saigle., S.Paiva., L. MacIntyre., M. Safi-Harab., M.E. Rousseau., J. Stirling., N. Khalili-Mahani, and D. MacFarlane. Cyberinfrastructure for open science at the Montreal Neurological Institute. Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 10, p.53 (2017).

V. Poupon., A. Seyller, and G.A. Rouleau. The Tanenbaum open science Institute: leading a paradigm shift at the montreal neurological institute. Neuron 95(5): p. 1002-1006 (2017).

G.C. Banks., J.G. Field., F.L. Oswald., E.H. O’Boyle., R.S. Landis., D.E. Rupp, and S.G. Rogelberg. Answers to 18 questions about open science practices. Journal of Business and Psychology 34(3): 257-270 (2019).

J.M. Wicherts., D. Borsboom., J. Kats, and D. Molenaar. The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American psychologist 61(7): 61(7): p. 726 (2006).

J.N. Rouder., The what, why, and how of born-open data. Behavior research methods 48(3): 1062-1069 (2016).

R.S. Noyce., S. Lederman, and D.H. Evans. Construction of an infectious horsepox virus vaccine from chemically synthesized DNA fragments. PloS one 13(1) (2018). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188453

T. Inglesby., Horsepox and the need for a new norm, more transparency, and stronger oversight for experiments that pose pandemic risks. PLoS Pathogen;14(10):e1007129 (2018). doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1007129

Downloads

Published

2020-06-10

How to Cite

Shinwari, Z. K. ., & Khalil, A. T. . (2020). Revisiting Open Science from the Perspective of Ethical Standards: Open science and ethics. Proceedings of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences: B. Life and Environmental Sciences, 57(2), 1–3. Retrieved from https://ppaspk.org/index.php/PPAS-B/article/view/28

Issue

Vol. 57 No. 2 (2020)

Section

Opinion

License

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY). Allows users to: copy the article and distribute; abstracts, create extracts, and other revised versions, adaptations or derivative works of or from an article (such as a translation); include in a collective work (such as an anthology); and text or data mine the article. These uses are permitted even for commercial purposes, provided the user: includes a link to the license; indicates if changes were made; gives appropriate credit to the author(s) (with a link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI); and does not represent the author(s) as endorsing the adaptation of the article or modify the article in such a way as to damage the authors' honor or reputation.