Science and the Internet

This is the second of a two-part series in which John Wood, Chair of the European Research Area Board (ERAB) gives a personal assessment of how research needs to change and adapt to face the future. The first report of ERAB will be launched in Brussels on 6 October.

The Internet gives everybody the chance to become a publisher. It is now possible for science to reach large audiences, with the potential to eliminate the role of established filters and gatekeepers, such as the traditional peer reviewed scientific journal. This also means that science can be easily reviewed, assessed, rated and commented upon by anybody, reinforcing scientific democracy. Poor research might thus be identified more quickly and debunked. The challenge is to create open access systems and ensure that old gatekeepers are not simply replaced by new ones.

Public access to assessment criteria means that individual reputations will become central and new ways to assess excellence will be developed. To state, “I am a scientist and I know best” will be unacceptable. A PhD from an internationally respected university will be a hallmark for some. However, as access becomes easier for all, how will we give a kite mark to people with non-conventional backgrounds? There will be more room for cranks to fill the networks with crazy ideas.

Crazy theories

Over the years I have received my own fair share of letters accusing me of wasting public money on large international research projects. They are normally typed on thin paper with a list of those copied (usually including the Prime Minister). I was once discussing these epistles with the head of the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge. We both took the same approach of ignoring such letters, but he then laughed and said he was always afraid that one of the crazy theories might turn out to be true and he would go down in history as ignoring it.

This problem will grow. New approaches, which are open, flexible and transparent are emerging, based on implicit and explicit data (such as incoming links, page views and ratings). These developments will lead to the evolution of a new model of assessment, based on qualitative and quantitative data, which will contrast with the existing ‘impact factor’ model. This does not mean that an organic, bottom-up and peer-to-peer approach is the only possible model: it is quite possible that a third-party system could be developed, which assesses and rates researchers in a dynamic way, including qualitative and quantitative input, emphasis on network analysis, implicit and explicit data – call it the Google of reputation.

New career structures in a virtual research world

In this networked world, an informal collaboration of scientists (including amateur scientists) may well produce better results than well established bureaucracies of research. Some research organisations could become irrelevant and be replaced by flexible networks. Accompanying this, the labour market for researchers will become more fluid, with greater mobility and differences in salaries. The European Research Area will profit from initiatives like the European Researcher Pass, which will allow researchers to move freely between all member states, carrying health care and social security with them where ever they go.

These developments do not mean that research institutions will disappear. In a world overloaded by information, institutions can be guarantors of quality.

But where will these institutions be located? Could be in Second Life in many cases? And how will these communities will interact socially? In many physical institutions the coffee room is where ideas are formulated and debated. In the virtual research environment will the same passion be developed, or will the e-generation evolve accordingly?

Openness should not only mean that research is conducted by networks of excellent researchers moving according to opportunities. Scientific research also has to be more transparent and accountable.  There is significant pressure to make scientific data available to the public, especially data collected with public funding or owned by the government (within the scope of Reuse of Public Sector Information). The mood is changing and there is stronger recognition of the immense value which could be generated from reusing such data, overcoming resistance from commercial interests and traditional gatekeeper positions. Initiatives such as Google Research Datasets will become a reality. In particular, beta research material and rough data will increasingly be available and will provide invaluable sources for research.

Crucially, this can include digital versions of live meetings, such as audio/video recordings of physical meetings and conversations between researchers. These resources can be extremely valuable in blurring the boundaries between formal and informal knowledge exchange. While information technology will not substitute for physical contact, it will enhance its meaning.

This new approach to ownership of data, as is discussed in the context of the open access movement, will lead to a totally new business models for research, as proprietary data would change the fundamentals of revenue generation.

Changing the nature of innovation

This openness does not only relate to rough data and the finished product. It also signifies a new emphasis on the research process itself, rather than the single, perfect new invention. Innovation, new ideas, key scientific findings, increasingly come in unpredictable ways, through the continuous exchange of views between high-level researchers with similar interests, and between people at different levels of the innovation cycle.

Increasingly, in the new open innovation model, innovative products are made public before being finalised, through the so-called permanent beta approach, because such large-scale deployment brings insights that would not be evident in a protected environment. A parallel change is likely to happen in science: results will no longer be solely delivered as a finished product (the publication of a journal or book) but as draft products, in order to enable wider feedback and subsequent improvement, enabled by the sharing of rough data, facilitating serendipitous innovation. This will also help to meeting the demand for improved knowledge transfer.

This process approach to science means that we will move towards a “science- as –a service mentality” (comparable to software development). In this scenario, research will not only funded because it may be able to obtain a specific result, but as an on-going process that underpins great inventions ex-ante and also the unplanned emergence of new ideas.

A key question is how privately funded research interact with this more open and transparent approach to research. The current emphasis on “Open Innovation” will come under immense strain in the current economic climate. At the same time, there is a need for a fundamental overhaul of the rules relating to State Aid and to Intellectual Property Protection to avoid protectionism. This will be a true test of European resolve in the coming months.

Research strength in interconnected diversity

In this new interconnected, globalised world, why should there be a “European Research Area”? Europe’s strength has always also been its weakness: its diversity. The European Union has already created an inner market which allows people from all member states to interact and trade with each other more easily. If it fully realises the Fifth Freedom – the freedom of knowledge - it has the potential to create a space where cultural diversity can unleash creativity and innovation.

In addition to diversity, Europe also has a strong common tradition of scientific and philosophical discovery. This is manifest in a holistic approach to education and research. Education is not regarded merely as knowledge transfer, but rather as the shaping of a human being as a valuable member of society, expressed in words such as Bildung or formation.

The German word Wissenschaft describes research in natural sciences as well as the arts, humanities and social sciences and the early modern period has seen the continuous development of all these areas. The European approach to scientific research, therefore, should build on the strength of this tradition. At the moment, arts, humanities and social science often see themselves as being in contrast to the natural sciences, and there is very little cross-fertilisation. The early years of the 20th century have shown how fruitful the interchange of ideas between these disciplines can be and we should aim for a stronger dialogue between them. This could help to identify new areas of research, as well as the communication and acceptance of natural sciences in the society. Trying to understand how other disciplines work, particularly if these disciplines are somewhat alien to one’s own specialisation, can also promote thinking outside the box and unleash creativity.

To enable this, students of the different disciplines will have to be educated in such a manner that they can communicate with each other more effectively. This has to start long before they enter university. Perhaps a greater emphasis on being a European Citizen should be included in schools’ curricula.

Building on the tradition of early modern renaissance people could be one of the great benefits Europe can bring to the globalised world of science.

(I would like to thank Jean-Claude Burgelman and Ulrike Uhlmann-Delaney for assistance in preparing this article.)

Part One, on how research needs to change and adapt to face the future, was published on 17 September.

ScienceBusiness is rapporteur to ERAB.