علم باز و اخلاق: تبیین ظرفیت‌ها، و موانع دستیابی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، علم اطلاعات و دانش شناسی، گروه پژوهشی ارزیابی سیاستها و پایش علم، فناوری و نوآوری، مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی‌کشور، تهران، ایرانن

2 کارشناس ارشد علم‌سنجی، گروه ارزیابی سیاست‌ها و پایش علم، فناوری و نوآوری، مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور، تهران، ایران

چکیده

هدف: تاکید علم باز بر شفافیت در ارائه داده، روش، یافته هر اقدامی است که در چرخه علم صورت می-پذیرد، و می‌کوشد تا از تعصب، تبعیض‌، سوگیری‌ سهوی، و عمدی جلوگیری کند، لیکن نیل به علم باز به-صورت همه‌جانبه، ممکن است نگرانی‌هایی را از بُعد اخلاقی ایجاد نماید. این اثر ضمن تبیین علم باز، به بررسی ظرفیت‌ها، و موانع دستیابی به آن در جوامع پرداخته، مباحث اخلاقی پیرامون آن را موشکافانه بررسی کرده، و توصیه‌های سیاستی مربوط به اخلاقِ علم باز را پیشنهاد داده است.
روش: مقاله حاضر به روش کتابخانه‌ای و مبتنی بر بوده است، و نمونه‌های عملیِ رویایی علم باز و اخلاق در چرخه علم در دنیا را ارائه داده است.
یافته‌ها: علم باز حرکتی همه‌جانبه است تا تمام اجزاء یک فعالیت یا اثر علمی از ابتدا تا انتها برای همه اقشار جامعه در دسترس باشد، و سه مولفه اصلی داده باز، ارتباطات علمی باز، و دسترسی آزاد را در بر می‌گیرد. اجرای همه جانبه علم باز نیازمند بسترسازی و فرهنگ‌سازی در میان همه ارکان جامعه، از تولیدکننده علم تا مخاطبان آن است.
نتیجه‌گیری: علم باز ترویج شفافیت، تکرارپذیری نتایج، و افزایش دامنه انتشار علم را به دنبال دارد، و برای حصول این اهداف، توجه به ملاحظات حقوقی و اخلاقی الزامی است. بر این اساس، توصیه‌های سیاستی شده‌اند تا جوامع به‌سوی علمِ باز مسئولانه حرکت کنند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Open science and ethics: Defining capacities and barriers

نویسندگان [English]

  • Shima Moradi 1
  • Sajedeh Abdi 2
1 Assistant professor, Library and information science, Policy Evaluation and Science, Technology and Innovation Monitoring Department, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran
2 MA in Scientometrics, Policy Evaluation and Science, Technology and Innovation Monitoring Department, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Purpose: The main focus of open science is on transparency in data sharing, method, and finding in every single action of science, preventing prejudice, discrimination, and biases. However, stepping toward open science comprehensively may raise ethical concerns. This paper was to define open science, identify capacities and barriers while demonstrating the ethical related issues. It also provided relevant policy recommendations regarding open science ethics
Methodology: This paper was a literature-based paper using an evidence-based approach. It provided ethical evidences and initiatives in open science relevant practices over the world.
Findings: Open science (OS) is a comprehensive movement that addresses all the components of scientific activity or work available to all segments of society from beginning to end. It involves the three main components of open data, open scientific communication, and open access. The broad implementation of OS requires culture-building among society, from scientists to the audiences.
Conclusion: Open science promotes transparency, repeatability, and increase the scope of science dissemination. Achieving these goals, it is essential to consider legal and ethical issues. Accordingly, policy recommendations have been made to move toward responsible Open Science.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • OS
  • Publishing ethics
  • Policies
  • Responsible Open Science

مراجع

[1] Internet incyclopedia of philosophy. 2020. [Online]. Available at: www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/
[2] Paul R, Elder L. The Miniature Guide to Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning. United States: Foundation for Critical Thinking Free Press. p. NP, 2006. ISBN 978-0-944583-17-3.
[3] Benatar D. Unscientific ethics: Science and selective ethics. The Hastings Center Report, 2007; 37 (1), 30-32.
[4] Morton N. "Publication ethics" (PDF). Pediatric Anesthesia. 2009; 19 (10), 1011–1013. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2009.03086.x.
[5] Singh A. Data Scientist's Role & Ethical Challenge. Data science foundation, Information. 2019. [Online]. Available at https://datascience.foundation/datatalk/data-scientist-s-role-ethical-challenge
[6] European Commission. Research, Risk-Benefit Analyses and Ethical Issues. 2013. [Online]. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_research_ethics/KI3213113ENC.pdf
[7] Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage.1994.
[8] Kunst S, Degkwitz A. Open Science-the new paradigm for research and education? Information Services & Use. 2018; 38: 203-205.
[9] Vicente-Sáez R. Martínez-Fuentes C. Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of business research. 2018; 88: 428-436.
[10] Menapace M. Scientific ethics: A new approach. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2018; 25 (4): 1193-216.
[11] Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman SD, Breckler SJ, ... & Contestabile, M. Promoting an open research culture. Science. 2015; 348 (6242): 1422-1425.
[12] Levin N, Leonelli S, Weckowska D, Castle D, Dupré J. How do scientists define openness? Exploring the relationship between open science policies and research practice. Bulletin of science, technology & society. 2016; 36 (2): 128-141.
[13] Smith KN, Makel MC. Open Science: A Candid Conversation. Journal of Advanced Academics. 2019; 30 (2), 111-123.
[14] SaAdat R. Open Access Publications: Concepts and Applications (In Persian). Book Quarterly. 2008; 85: 127-145.
[15] Ghane MR. Open science and change in scientific communication (In Persian). Shiraz: National Conference on Prospects for Scientific Communication, 2018. Available at: http://ilisafars.ir/nameh/index.php/presets/preset-2/47-2018-07-24-05-55-45
[16] Roman M, Liu J, Nyberg T. Advancing the open science movement through sustainable business model development. Industry and Higher Education. 2018; 32(4): 226-234.
[17] McKiernan EC, Bourne PE, Brown CT, Buck S, Kenall A, Lin J, McDougall D, Nosek BA, Ram K, Soderberg CK, Spies JR, Thaney K, Updegrove A, Woo KH, Yarkoni T (2016) ‘How open science helps researchers succeed’, eLife. 2016; 5: 1–19.
[18] Perry LB. Assessing the performance of educational research in Australian universities: an alternative perspective. Higher Education Research & Development. 2018; 37(2): 343-358.
[19] Albert KM. Open access: Implications for scholarly publishing and medical libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2006; 94 (3): 253.
[20] Jamali Mahmuei HR, Vakili Mofrad H, Asadi S.  Open access scientific journals and their financial publication patterns (In Persian). Library and Information Sciences. 2006; 9 (2): 11-34.
[21] Alperin, J. P., Nieves, C. M., Schimanski, L. A., Fischman, G. E., Niles, M. T., & McKiernan, E. C. (2019). Meta-Research: How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents? eLife. 8, e42254.
[22] Alperin JP, Morales E, McKiernan EC. Academic review promotion and tenure documents promote a view of open access that is at odds with the wider academic community. LSE Impact Blog. 2019. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2019/07/17/ academic-review-promotion-and-tenure-documents-promote-a-view-of-open-access-that-is-at-odds-with-the-wider-academic-community/
[23] Peroni S, Shotton D. Open Citation Identifier: Definition. Figshare. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7127816.
[24] Foster. Open Science. 2020. Available at: https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/foster-taxonomy/open-science
[25] Faulstich P (Ed.). Öffentliche Wissenschaft: neue Perspektiven der Vermittlung in der wissenschaftlichen Weiterbildung (Vol. 4). transcript Verlag. 2015.
[26] Masuzzo P, Marten L. Do you speak open science? Resources and tips to learn the language. PeerJ Preprints. 2017. doi:10.7287/peerj. preprints.2689v1.
[27] Frandsen TF.  Scholarly communication changing: The implications of open access. Royal School of Library and Information Science. 2009.
[28] Noori S, Shahshojaei A. Information Ethics in the Digital Environment. Journal of National Studies on Librarianship and Information Organization. 2012; 23 (2): 26-47.
[29] Hunter, P. The deal with DEAL for open access: The recent publish-and-read deals have increased momentum for open-access publishing but may not solve the challenge of open science. EMBO reports, e       49794. 2019.
[30] Almeida AVD, Borges MM, Roque L. The European Open Science Cloud: A New Challenge for Europe. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality. 1-4. 2017.
[31] Longo DL, Drazen JM. Data sharing. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374 (3): 276-7. doi:10.1056/NEJMe1516564.
[32] Karimi R. Ethical Considerations in Reporting Research Findings (In Persian). Journal of National Studies on Librarianship and Information Organization.2010;21(2): 6-21.
[33] Tenopir C, Van Der Hoeven J, Palmer CL. Sharing data: practices, barriers, and incentives. Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting. 2011; 48 (1): 1-4. DOI: 10.1002/meet.2011. 14504801026.
[34] E-infrastrcutures Austria: Forschende und ihre Daten. Ergebnisse einer österreichweiten Befragung phaidra.univie.ac.at/detail_object/o:407513. 2015.
[35] Berghmans S, Cousijn H, Deakin G, Meijer I, Mulligan A, Plume A. ..., Waltman, L. Open Data: The Researcher Perspective. Leiden University’s Centre for Science and Technology Studies. Elsevier, and Universiteit Leiden. Online. 2017. Available at https://www. elsevier. Com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/281920/Open-data-report. Pdf. Accessed May, 25, 2018.
[36] Borgman CL. big data, little data, no data: scholarship in the networked world. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. www.Mitpress.mit.edu/big-data, 2015.s
[37] Jago R, Van Der Ploeg H. Open science for nutrition and physical activity research: a new challenge and lots of opportunities for IJBNPA, 2018.
[38] NSF. 2016. Dissemination and sharing of research results —NSF —National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp.
[39] Holdren J. P. Increasing access to the results of federally funded scientific research. 2012.
[40] Minshall T, Seldon S, Probert D. Commercializing a Disruptive Technology Based Upon University Ip Through Open Innovation: A Case Study of Cambridge Display Technology International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management. 2007; 4 (3): 225–239.
[41] European Commission. European Open Science Cloud. 2017 Available at: https://ec. europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=open-science-cloud
[42] Perkmann M. How boundary organizations facilitate collaboration across diverse communities. Managing knowledge integration across boundaries.  2017; 155-170.
[43] Cervantes M, Meissner D. Commercialising Public Research under the Open Innovation Model: New Trends’. Foresight Russia. 2014; 8 (3): 70–81.
[44] Peters M. Knowledge socialism: the rise of peer production - collegiality, collaboration, and collective intelligence. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 2019; 1-9.
[45] Open Science and Research – and Ethics. Åbo Akademi University, Open Science and Research – and Ethics, 2020. Available at: www.abo.fi/en/research-at-aau/open-science-and-ethics/
[46] Mustajoki H. Open science and research ethics. Responsible Research, Guide to research integrity, research ethics and science communications in Finland, 2018. Available at: https://vastuullinentiede.fi/en/doing-research/open-science-and-research-ethics.
[47] Responsible Open Science. (2020). Responsible Open Science: An Ethics and Integrity Perspective. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/ guides_for_applicants/h2020-swafs-30-20-policy-briefing_en.pdf.
[48] Sharma OP. Ethics in science. Indian journal of microbiology. 2015; 55 (3): 341-344.
[49] Iaccarino M. Science and ethics. EMBO reports,2001; 2 (9): 747-750.
[50] Matas JAV. Values and science: An analysis the ethics in the science. Sociol Int J. 2018; 2 (3): 257-265.
[51] Copland P. Science and ethics must not be separated. Nature. 2003; 425 (6954): 121.
[52] UNESCO Bioethics unit under Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC). Professional Ethics and Human values. ND. https://iqac.sgtuniversity.ac.in/?page_id=5707#.
[53] Paxton A. The Belmont Report in the Age of Big Data: Ethics at the Intersection of Psychological Science and Data Science. 2020.
[54] Peters MA. Open science. philosophy and peer review. 2014.
[55] Plutzer E. Publication Ethics, Transparency, and Replication: New Policies at POQ. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2019. 83 (2): 309-312, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz028.
[56] Bhaduri S. The grand challenge and ethics of the ‘central science’. CURRENT SCIENCE. 2018; 115 (10): 1852.
[57] Düwell M. Open Science and Ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 2019; 1-3.
[58] Delfanti A. Hacking genomes. The ethics of open and rebel biology. International Review of Information Ethics. 2011; 15 (9): 52-57.
[59] UNESCO. International Bioethics Committee (IBC). UNESCO experts urge collective responsibility to protect vulnerable persons in global battle against COVID-19. 2019. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-experts-urge-collective-responsibility-protect-vulnerable-persons-global-battle-against.
[60] Åbo Akademy University. Goals and strategies 2015-2020.  2018. Available at: https://www.abo.fi/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/eng_strategy_2015-20.pdf .
[61] Open Science Repository. Ethical Guidelines. ND Available at: http://www.open-science-repository.com/research-ethical-guidelines.html.
[62] Christians CG. Media Ethics and Global Justice in the Digital Age. Cambridge University Press. 2019.
[63] Archibugi D. Blade Runner economics: Will innovation lead the economic recovery? Research Policy. 2017; 46 (3): 535-543.
 

فایل ها

همرسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار