Breaking Through to the Sceptics

Thankfully, there are some good, robust, ongoing initiatives getting us started. Signatories of the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) pledge to eliminate journal-based metrics (e.g. impact factors) from funding, appointment and promotion considerations, and to assess research on its own merits rather than the publishing journal’s prestige. Among these signatories are the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Cardif, and nearly 2,000 more globally. If research becomes more accessible and open to criticism and scrutiny, standards will rise.

Plan S is another initiative launched by a group of national research funding organisations to combat the increasing monetisation of science. It requires that, from 2021, scientifc publications funded by public grants must be published in open-access journals or platforms. In this way, by eliminating publication paywalls we can return to the principles of modern science; namely universalism, collectivism, impartiality, and organised scepticism (Merton, 1942). Participating funders include the European Research Council and Wellcome, with more on the horizon.

As with many revolutions, change is unlikely to be harmless. Early-stage career researchers producing the most impressive, high-quality, research, may be restricted in publishing in their “dream” high-impact journal if their funding body signs Plan S. They may miss out on promotion if their colleague, unhindered by Plan S, dazzles the hiring committee, all the more so if their institution hasn’t yet implemented DORA.

These are my–admittedly–rather selfsh (and optimistic) concerns, and I know they are shared by many others. Yet for the good of science, we must embrace the change that is coming; the quicker, the better.

Breakthrough

In science, a discovery is seen as a breakthrough if it brings about an important, dramatic, or sudden development. As such, it is usually accompanied by a great deal of hype, as journalists scurry to be the frst to cover the facts. However, this perspective overlooks a much subtler and arguably more important type of breakthrough: how are these discoveries communicated to the wider public?

Historically, ignoring this important obligation has resulted in a discord between researchers and the general population, creating a number of problems for both parties. A poor or elitist perception

Breaking Through to the Sceptics

of science reduces the diversity of people entering the feld, whilst the lack of public support limits the funding available for research. But the most socially signifcant consequences arise when the public lose their trust in scientists: in 1998, a paper was published linking the MMR vaccine with the development of autism in children. The paper was universally discredited by the scientifc community and subsequently retracted, but the the damage to public opinion had been done. UK Vaccination rates plummeted from more than 95%, which is the minimum coverage required to maintain herd immunity within a country, to less than 80%, which introduces a high risk of outbreaks in densely populated areas. The rates have never recovered and this unfortunate legacy persists, with both measles cases and anti-vaxxer sentiments on the rise in the UK. With so much of public well-being at stake, an urgent strategy to efectively break through to these resistant members of the public is clearly required. The ‘us and them’ illusion must be shattered. But this is a shared responsibility: the media should report amenably on sensitive issues; government should support school outreach and public engagement to inspire young people to take an active part in scientifc discovery; and researchers should try to involve the public in their research. This combined approach has already proven successful with examples such as the 100 000 genomes project garnering signifcant public support. In 2012, the UK government supported the sequencing of 100 000 genomes from NHS patients with cancer or rare diseases. Almost 10 years on, thousands of patients have beneftted from the advances in medicine owing to this project, really demonstrating the importance of efective communication in science.

“The ‘us and them’ illusion must be shattered.”

@oxsci @oxfordscientist editor@oxsci.org @oxsci

Oxford the