From the creation of the European research area in 2000 to a Mission on cancer in Europe in 2021-lessons learned and implications

In the year 2000, cancer research in Europe had the potential to make a difference as it had several unique strengths, such as a strong foundation in biomedical science, good patient registries, infrastructures that spanned from biological repositories to bioinformatic hubs as well as thriving Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) and basic/preclinical cancer research institutions of high international standing. Research, however, was fragmented and lacked coordination. As a result, Europe could not harness its potential for translating basic research discoveries into a clinical setting for the patients' benefit. What was needed was a paradigm shift in cancer research that addressed the translational research continuum. Along these lines, in 2000, European Union (EU) Commissioner Philippe Busquin established the European Research Area (ERA) and in 2002 the European Cancer Research Area (ECRA), and their political approval was a powerful catalyst for the increased involvement of scientists in science policy in the EU. In this report, we briefly describe the actions embraced by the cancer community and cancer organizations in response to Busquin's proposals that led to the creation of the EU Mission on Cancer (MoC) in Horizon 2020 in 2021.

Shifting the paradigm of research-to-policy impact: Infrastructure for improving researcher engagement and collective action

The body of scientific knowledge accumulated by the scholarly disciplines such as Developmental Psychopathology can achieve meaningful public impact if wielded and used in policy decision-making. Scientific study of how policymakers use research evidence underscores the need for researchers' policy engagement; however, barriers in the academy create conditions in which there is a need for infrastructure that increases the feasibility of researchers' partnership with policymakers. This need led to the development of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration model, a systematic approach for developing "boundary spanning" infrastructure, which has been experimentally tested and shown to improve policymakers' use of research evidence and bolster researchers' policy skills and engagement. This paper presents original research regarding the optimization of the RPC model, which sought to better serve and engage scholars across the globe. Trial findings shed light on ways to improve conditions that make good use of researchers' time for policy engagement via a virtual platform and enhanced e-communications. Future directions, implications, and practical guidelines for how scientists can engage in the political process and improve the impact of a collective discipline are also discussed.

Strategies to decrease inequalities in cancer therapeutics, care and prevention: Proceedings on a conference organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the European Academy of Cancer Sciences, Vatican City, February 23-24, 2023

Analyses of inequalities related to prevention and cancer therapeutics/care show disparities between countries with different economic standing, and within countries with high Gross Domestic Product. The development of basic technological and biological research provides clinical and prevention opportunities that make their implementation into healthcare systems more complex, mainly due to the growth of Personalized/Precision Cancer Medicine (PCM). Initiatives like the USA-Cancer Moonshot and the EU-Mission on Cancer and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan are initiated to boost cancer prevention and therapeutics/care innovation and to mitigate present inequalities. The conference organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in collaboration with the European Academy of Cancer Sciences discussed the inequality problem, dependent on the economic status of a country, the increasing demands for infrastructure supportive of innovative research and its implementation in healthcare and prevention programs. Establishing translational research defined as a coherent cancer research continuum is still a challenge. Research has to cover the entire continuum from basic to outcomes research for clinical and prevention modalities. Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) are of critical importance for integrating research innovations to preclinical and clinical research, as for ensuring state-of-the-art patient care within healthcare systems. International collaborative networks between CCCs are necessary to reach the critical mass of infrastructures and patients for PCM research, and for introducing prevention modalities and new treatments effectively. Outcomes and health economics research are required to assess the cost-effectiveness of new interventions, currently a missing element in the research portfolio. Data sharing and critical mass are essential for innovative research to develop PCM. Despite advances in cancer research, cancer incidence and prevalence is growing. Making cancer research infrastructures accessible for all patients, considering the increasing inequalities, requires science policy actions incentivizing research aimed at prevention and cancer therapeutics/care with an increased focus on patients' needs and cost-effective healthcare.

Realizing the price of academic freedom

Since 2010, the number of life science doctoral graduates opting into academic postdoctoral employment has steadily declined. In recent years, this decline has made routine headlines in academic news cycles, and faculty members, universities, and funding bodies alike have begun to take notice. In November 2022, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened a special interest group to address the problems in postdoctoral recruitment and retention. In response, the American Physiological Society Science Policy Committee highlighted several key issues in postdoctoral training and working conditions and offered the NIH solutions to consider. There are known issues that affect postdoctoral recruitment and retention efforts: low wages relative to other employment sectors, a heavy workload, and poor job prospects to name a few. Unfortunately, these concerns are frequently dismissed as "the price of doing business in academia," and postdoctoral scholars are promised that if they overcome the trials and tribulations of this training period, the reward at the end, a career with academic freedom to pursue your own interests, justifies the means. However, academic freedom cannot and should not be used as the band-aid in a system where most of us will never actually experience academic freedom. Instead, we should systematically embrace solutions that improve the personal and professional health of early career researchers in all levels of training and independence if the goal is to truly shore up the academic workforce.

From lab to society: Fostering clinical translation of molecular systems engineering

Over the last decade, bioengineering has seen a sustained growth in scientific publications, patents, and clinical trials. As the field attempts to bridge the gap between discovery and clinical application, a broader societal dialogue is needed to build public trust and address potential ethical, societal, and regulatory challenges. In this essay, we discuss societal aspects linked to the clinical use of biomedical engineering approaches and technologies, with a specific focus on molecular systems engineering. Drawing on data from interviews with 24 scientists, we identified four key aspects for fostering societal support for translational efforts in this domain: (1) effective science communication and internal awareness; (2) open societal dialogue; (3) fair and equitable access to new technologies; and (4) adequate science and technology policies. We conclude that molecular systems engineering would benefit from anticipating future challenges with the view of building a robust bond of trust with lay publics, regulators, and society at large.

Assessment criteria for research misconduct: Taiwanese researchers' perceptions

Assessing the severity of an instance of research misconduct is undoubtedly challenging, especially when the result of the assessment may be key to suggesting subsequent sanctions. However, only a few references are currently available in the Taiwanese academic context. In a previous study, the present authors developed The Assessment Criteria for Research Misconduct (The Criteria) based on existing international policies and guidelines and reviewed by local research scholars for content validity. The Criteria, with a total of 28 items, were organized into three sections: general criteria for determining case severity, aggravating criteria, and mitigating criteria. In the current study, the authors further conducted a survey and collected data on 277 Taiwanese researchers' perceived importance of each criterion included in The Criteria. The results showed that participants generally agreed with the importance of all criteria. However, the group that lacked case-handling experience attributed significantly greater levels of importance to the criterion of original will (proactive, passive, or coercive) toward participation in misconduct than did the experienced group. In addition, the participants exhibited greater variation in the perceived importance of the mitigating criteria. Finally, the possible utility of The Criteria in real contexts and training materials is suggested in the study.

Beyond kindness: a proposal for the flourishing of science and scientists alike

We argue that many of the crises currently afflicting science can be associated with a present failure of science to sufficiently embody its own values. Here, we propose a response beyond mere crisis resolution based on the observation that an ethical framework of flourishing derived from the Buddhist tradition aligns surprisingly well with the values of science itself. This alignment, we argue, suggests a recasting of science from a competitively managed activity of knowledge production to a collaboratively organized moral practice that puts kindness and sharing at its core. We end by examining how Flourishing Science could be embodied in academic practice, from individual to organizational levels, and how that could help to arrive at a flourishing of scientists and science alike.

Transparency in research: An analysis of ChatGPT usage acknowledgment by authors across disciplines and geographies

This investigation systematically reviews the recognition of generative AI tools, particularly ChatGPT, in scholarly literature. Utilizing 1,226 publications from the Dimensions database, ranging from November 2022 to July 2023, the research scrutinizes temporal trends and distribution across disciplines and regions. U.S.-based authors lead in acknowledgments, with notable contributions from China and India. Predominantly, Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, as well as Information and Computing Sciences, are engaging with these AI tools. Publications like "The Lancet Digital Health" and platforms such as "bioRxiv" are recurrent venues for such acknowledgments, highlighting AI's growing impact on research dissemination. The analysis is confined to the Dimensions database, thus potentially overlooking other sources and grey literature. Additionally, the study abstains from examining the acknowledgments' quality or ethical considerations. Findings are beneficial for stakeholders, providing a basis for policy and scholarly discourse on ethical AI use in academia. This study represents the inaugural comprehensive empirical assessment of AI acknowledgment patterns in academic contexts, addressing a previously unexplored aspect of scholarly communication.

Potential business model for a European vaccine R&D infrastructure and its estimated socio-economic impact

Background

Research infrastructures are facilities or resources that have proven fundamental for supporting scientific research and innovation. However, they are also known to be very expensive in their establishment, operation and maintenance. As by far the biggest share of these costs is always borne by public funders, there is a strong interest and indeed a necessity to develop alternative business models for such infrastructures that allow them to function in a more sustainable manner that is less dependent on public financing.

Methods

In this article, we describe a feasibility study we have undertaken to develop a potentially sustainable business model for a vaccine research and development (R&D) infrastructure. The model we have developed integrates two different types of business models that would provide the infrastructure with two different types of revenue streams which would facilitate its establishment and would be a measure of risk reduction. For the business model we are proposing, we have undertaken an ex ante impact assessment that estimates the expected impact for a vaccine R&D infrastructure based on the proposed models along three different dimensions: health, society and economy.

Results

Our impact assessment demonstrates that such a vaccine R&D infrastructure could achieve a very significant socio-economic impact, and so its establishment is therefore considered worthwhile pursuing.

Conclusions

The business model we have developed, the impact assessment and the overall process we have followed might also be of interest to other research infrastructure initiatives in the biomedical field.

Organ chip research in Europe: players, initiatives, and policies

Background: Organ chips are microfabricated devices containing living engineered organ substructures in a controlled microenvironment. Research on organ chips has increased considerably over the past two decades. Aim: This paper offers an overview of the emerging knowledge ecosystem of organ chip research in Europe. Method: This study is based on queries and analyses undertaken through the bibliometric software Dimensions.ai. Results: Organ chip research has been rapidly growing in Europe in recent years, supported by robust academic science consortia, public-private initiatives, dedicated funding, and science policy instruments. Our data shows that previous investment in basic and fundamental research in centers of excellence in bioengineering science and technology are relevant to future investment in organ chips. Moreover, organ chip research in Europe is characterized by collaborative infrastructures to promote convergence of scientific, technical, and clinical capabilities. Conclusion: According to our study, the knowledge ecosystem of organ chip research in Europe has been growing sustainably. This growth is due to relevant institutional diversity, public-private initiatives, and ongoing research collaborations supported by robust funding schemes.

Is Open Science Neoliberal?

The scientific-reform movement, frequently referred to as open science, has the potential to substantially reshape the nature of the scientific activity. For this reason, its sociopolitical antecedents and consequences deserve serious scholarly attention. In a recently formed literature that professes to meet this need, it has been widely argued that the movement is neoliberal. However, for two reasons it is hard to justify this widescale attribution: First, the critics mistakenly represent the movement as a monolithic structure, and second, the critics' arguments associating the movement with neoliberalism because of the movement's (a) preferential focus on methodological issues, (b) underlying philosophy of science, and (c) allegedly promarket ideological proclivities reflected in the methodology and science-policy proposals do not hold under closer scrutiny. These shortcomings show a lack of sufficient engagement with the reform literature. What is needed is more nuanced accounts of the sociopolitical underpinnings of scientific reform. To address this need, we propose a model for the analysis of reform proposals, which represents scientific methodology, axiology, science policy, and ideology as interconnected but relatively distinct domains, and thus allows for recognizing the divergent tendencies in the movement and the uniqueness of particular proposals.

Shifting the Level of Selection in Science

Criteria for recognizing and rewarding scientists primarily focus on individual contributions. This creates a conflict between what is best for scientists' careers and what is best for science. In this article, we show how the theory of multilevel selection provides conceptual tools for modifying incentives to better align individual and collective interests. A core principle is the need to account for indirect effects by shifting the level at which selection operates from individuals to the groups in which individuals are embedded. This principle is used in several fields to improve collective outcomes, including animal husbandry, team sports, and professional organizations. Shifting the level of selection has the potential to ameliorate several problems in contemporary science, including accounting for scientists' diverse contributions to knowledge generation, reducing individual-level competition, and promoting specialization and team science. We discuss the difficulties associated with shifting the level of selection and outline directions for future development in this domain.

Predicting substantive biomedical citations without full text

Insights from biomedical citation networks can be used to identify promising avenues for accelerating research and its downstream bench-to-bedside translation. Citation analysis generally assumes that each citation documents substantive knowledge transfer that informed the conception, design, or execution of the main experiments. Citations may exist for other reasons. In this paper, we take advantage of late-stage citations added during peer review because these are less likely to represent substantive knowledge flow. Using a large, comprehensive feature set of open access data, we train a predictive model to identify late-stage citations. The model relies only on the title, abstract, and citations to previous articles but not the full-text or future citations patterns, making it suitable for publications as soon as they are released, or those behind a paywall (the vast majority). We find that high prediction scores identify late-stage citations that were likely added during the peer review process as well as those more likely to be rhetorical, such as journal self-citations added during review. Our model conversely gives low prediction scores to early-stage citations and citation classes that are known to represent substantive knowledge transfer. Using this model, we find that US federally funded biomedical research publications represent 30% of the predicted early-stage (and more likely to be substantive) knowledge transfer from basic studies to clinical research, even though these comprise only 10% of the literature. This is a threefold overrepresentation in this important type of knowledge flow.

Reshaping the research landscape in Brazil

Brazil would benefit from a long-term strategy for science and innovation that improves the standing of both science and scientists in the country.

Dissecting the tension of open science standards implementation in management and organization journals

Growing concerns about the credibility of scientific findings have sparked a debate on new transparency and openness standards in research. Management and organization studies scholars generally support the new standards, while emphasizing the unique challenges associated with their implementation in this paradigmatically diverse discipline. In this study, I analyze the costs to authors and journals associated with the implementation of new transparency and openness standards, and provide a progress report on the implementation level thus far. Drawing on an analysis of the submission guidelines of 60 empirical management journals, I find that the call for greater transparency was received, but resulted in implementations that were limited in scope and depth. Even standards that could have been easily adopted were left unimplemented, producing a paradoxical situation in which research designs that need transparency standards the most are not exposed to any, likely because the standards are irrelevant to other research designs.

Effective or predatory funding? Evaluating the hidden costs of grant applications

Researchers are spending an increasing fraction of their time on applying for funding; however, the current funding system has considerable deficiencies in reliably evaluating the merit of research proposals, despite extensive efforts on the sides of applicants, grant reviewers and decision committees. For some funding schemes, the systemic costs of the application process as a whole can even outweigh the granted resources-a phenomenon that could be considered as predatory funding. We present five recommendations to remedy this unsatisfactory situation.

Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?

Retractions are among the effective measures to strengthen the self-correction of science and the quality of the literature. When it comes to self-retractions for honest errors, exposing one's own failures is not a trivial matter for researchers. However, self-correcting data, results and/or conclusions has increasingly been perceived as a good research practice, although rewarding such practice challenges traditional models of research assessment. In this context, it is timely to investigate who have self-retracted for honest error in terms of country, field, and gender. We show results on these three factors, focusing on gender, as data are scarce on the representation of female scientists in efforts to set the research record straight. We collected 3,822 retraction records, including research articles, review papers, meta-analyses, and letters under the category "error" from the Retraction Watch Database for the 2010-2021 period. We screened the dataset collected for research articles (2,906) and then excluded retractions by publishers, editors, or third parties, and those mentioning any investigation issues. We analyzed the content of each retraction manually to include only those indicating that they were requested by authors and attributed solely to unintended mistakes. We categorized the records according to country, field, and gender, after selecting research articles with a sole corresponding author. Gender was predicted using Genderize, at a 90% probability threshold for the final sample (n = 281). Our results show that female scientists account for 25% of self-retractions for honest error, with the highest share for women affiliated with US institutions.

The present situation of and challenges in research ethics and integrity promotion: Experiences in East Asia

As relatively new economies to the global research arena, East Asian nations have fully realized the importance of research integrity in recent decades. This article conducts document analysis to demonstrate and discuss the current situation of research integrity campaigns in Taiwan, Korea, and Japan, nations that have similar cultural backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses. This article emphasizes the common situations faced by these three nations both individually and collectively. Based on a four-pillar framework, research integrity campaigns in these nations are making progress in terms of policies and regulations, institutional management, researchers' education and training, and the handling of misconduct cases. Various issues and challenges have also emerged in this context, although these efforts may have had positive impacts on research communities in these three nations. Challenges associated with research integrity governance, institutional willingness, RCR instructor qualifications, the effectiveness of education, and the standardization of definitions of misconduct and noncompliance are also highlighted. The issues discussed in this article are expected to have implications for research communities and policy-makers in these three nations as well as in a global context.

Analyzing some concepts of immune regulation of the last three decades: Fostering greater research resilience despite the information overload. A personal view

There is considerable interest in whether increased investment in science, made by society, pays dividends. Some plausibly argue the increased rate of production of information results in an ossification of the canon. Reports, challenging the canon, fall by the wayside. The field thus becomes increasingly complex, reflecting not so much the reality of nature but how we investigate the subject. I suggest that focusing on and resolving the paradoxes evident within a canon will free the logjam, resulting in more resilient research. Immunology is among the fastest growing of biological sciences and is, I suggest, an appropriate case study. I examine the commonly accepted frameworks employed over the last three decades to address two major, related immunological questions: what determines whether antigen activates or inactivates CD4 T cells, and so whether immune responses are initiated or this potential ablated; secondly, what determines the Th subset to which the activated Th cells belong, thus determining the class of immunity generated. I show there are major paradoxes within these frameworks, neglected for decades. I propose how research focused on resolving paradoxes can be better fostered, and so support the evolution of the canon. This perspective is pertinent in facing critical issues on how immune responses are regulated, and to more general issues of both the philosophy of science and of science policy.The last section is in response to questions and comments of the reviewers. It brings together several considerations to express my view: the same frameworks, formulated in response to the two questions, are useful in understanding the regulation of the immune response against model antigens, against self and foreign antigens, those of tumors and of pathogens.

Researchers and Their Experimental Models: A Pilot Survey in the Context of the European Union Health and Life Science Research

Simple Summary

Scientists in biomedical research use models and methods to constantly improve health in society. This research heavily relies on animal experimentation, and in recent decades, research and researchers have been questioned by societal stakeholders about their way of conducting research. In order to inform science policy makers, we asked the researchers about the use of their experimental models and their view about the role of external stakeholders in their work.

Abstract

A significant debate is ongoing on the effectiveness of animal experimentation, due to the increasing reports of failure in the translation of results from preclinical animal experiments to human patients. Scientific, ethical, social and economic considerations linked to the use of animals raise concerns in a variety of societal contributors (regulators, policy makers, non-governmental organisations, industry, etc.). The aim of this study was to record researchers’ voices about their vision on this science evolution, to reconstruct as truthful as possible an image of the reality of health and life science research, by using a key instrument in the hands of the researcher: the experimental models. Hence, we surveyed European-based health and life sciences researchers, to reconstruct and decipher the varying orientations and opinions of this community over these large transformations. In the interest of advancing the public debate and more accurately guide the policy of research, it is important that policy makers, society, scientists and all stakeholders (1) mature as comprehensive as possible an understanding of the researchers’ perspectives on the selection and establishment of the experimental models, and (2) that researchers publicly share the research community opinions regarding the external factors influencing their professional work. Our results highlighted a general homogeneity of answers from the 117 respondents. However, some discrepancies on specific key issues and topics were registered in the subgroups. These recorded divergent views might prove useful to policy makers and regulators to calibrate their agenda and shape the future of the European health and life science research. Overall, the results of this pilot study highlight the need of a continuous, open and broad discussion between researchers and science policy stakeholders.

Not so fast with fast funding

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have become increasingly dissatisfied with how science funding is distributed. Traditional grant funding processes are seen as stifling the creativity of researchers, in addition to being bureaucratic, slow, and inefficient. Consequently, there have been increasing popular calls to make "fast funding" - fast, unbureaucratic grant applications - a new standard for scientific funding. Though this approach to funding, implemented by Fast Grants, has been successful as a pandemic response strategy, we believe there are serious costs to its wide-scale adoption, particularly for transparency and equity, and that the purported benefits - increased creativity and efficiency - are unlikely to materialize. While traditional funding mechanisms are certainly not perfect, scientific communities should think twice before adopting fast funding as a new standard for funding.

Forecasting the publication and citation outcomes of COVID-19 preprints

Many publications on COVID-19 were released on preprint servers such as medRxiv and bioRxiv. It is unknown how reliable these preprints are, and which ones will eventually be published in scientific journals. In this study, we use crowdsourced human forecasts to predict publication outcomes and future citation counts for a sample of 400 preprints with high Altmetric score. Most of these preprints were published within 1 year of upload on a preprint server (70%), with a considerable fraction (45%) appearing in a high-impact journal with a journal impact factor of at least 10. On average, the preprints received 162 citations within the first year. We found that forecasters can predict if preprints will be published after 1 year and if the publishing journal has high impact. Forecasts are also informative with respect to Google Scholar citations within 1 year of upload on a preprint server. For both types of assessment, we found statistically significant positive correlations between forecasts and observed outcomes. While the forecasts can help to provide a preliminary assessment of preprints at a faster pace than traditional peer-review, it remains to be investigated if such an assessment is suited to identify methodological problems in preprints.

Three decades of ethical, legal, and social implications research: Looking back to chart a path forward

More than thirty years ago in the United States, the National Center for Human Genome Research (NCHGR) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its partner in the Human Genome Project (HGP), the Department of Energy (DOE), called for proposals from social scientists, ethicists, lawyers, and others to explore the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of mapping and sequencing the human genome. Today, nearly twenty years after the completion of the HGP, the ELSI Research Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) continues this support. It has fostered the growth of ELSI research into a global field of study, uniquely positioned at the nexus of many academic disciplines and in proximity to basic and applied scientific research. We examine the formation of the first ELSI program and consider whether science policy in the public interest can exist within the confines of a set-aside from the NHGRI budget.

Credit and Recognition for Contributions to Data-Sharing Platforms Among Cohort Holders and Platform Developers in Europe: Interview Study

Background

The European Commission is funding projects that aim to establish data-sharing platforms. These platforms are envisioned to enhance and facilitate the international sharing of cohort data. Nevertheless, broad data sharing may be restricted by the lack of adequate recognition for those who share data.

Objective

The aim of this study is to describe in depth the concerns about acquiring credit for data sharing within epidemiological research.

Methods

A total of 17 participants linked to European Union–funded data-sharing platforms were recruited for a semistructured interview. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis.

Results

Interviewees argued that data sharing within international projects could challenge authorship guidelines in multiple ways. Some respondents considered that the acquisition of credit for articles with extensive author lists could be problematic in some instances, such as for junior researchers. In addition, universities may be critical of researchers who share data more often than leading research. Some considered that the evaluation system undervalues data generators and specialists. Respondents generally looked favorably upon alternatives to the current evaluation system to potentially ameliorate these issues.

Conclusions

The evaluation system might impede data sharing because it mainly focuses on first and last authorship and undervalues the contributor’s work. Further movement of crediting models toward contributorship could potentially address this issue. Appropriate crediting mechanisms that are better aligned with the way science ought to be conducted in the future need to be developed.

From Bench to Bureaucracy: The Path from Academic Research to Science Policy

As the COVID-19 pandemic shines a spotlight on the importance of science to support evidence-based policy, Rushika Wirasinha, PhD writes of a career path available to academic researchers–science policy.

An agenda-setting paper on data sharing platforms: euCanSHare workshop

Various data sharing platforms are being developed to enhance the sharing of cohort data by addressing the fragmented state of data storage and access systems. However, policy challenges in several domains remain unresolved. The euCanSHare workshop was organized to identify and discuss these challenges and to set the future research agenda. Concerns over the multiplicity and long-term sustainability of platforms, lack of resources, access of commercial parties to medical data, credit and recognition mechanisms in academia and the organization of data access committees are outlined. Within these areas, solutions need to be devised to ensure an optimal functioning of platforms.

Science Advocacy 101: Realizing the Benefits, Overcoming the Challenges

To many researchers interested in connecting their research to policy decisions and advocating for increased federal investment in science, the federal policy-making and appropriations processes may feel distant and difficult to navigate. The goal of this article is to provide an overview of the federal budget and legislative processes, as well as an understanding of the congressional offices and committees managing these processes, with information about how policymakers incorporate evidence into their work and the challenges they face. The article describes the policy-making ecosystem, in particular the role of the advocacy community. We identify specific points in the process that provide opportunities for researchers and advocates to weigh in on important issues such as federal funding for science and the scientific workforce. Case studies are provided demonstrating two advocacy successes. Finally, we provide a list of relevant resources.

On Neurorights

In recent years, philosophical-legal studies on neuroscience (mainly in the fields of neuroethics and neurolaw) have given increasing prominence to a normative analysis of the ethical-legal challenges in the mind and brain sciences in terms of rights, freedoms, entitlements and associated obligations. This way of analyzing the ethical and legal implications of neuroscience has come to be known as “neurorights.” Neurorights can be defined as the ethical, legal, social, or natural principles of freedom or entitlement related to a person’s cerebral and mental domain; that is, the fundamental normative rules for the protection and preservation of the human brain and mind. Although reflections on neurorights have received ample coverage in the mainstream media and have rapidly become a mainstream topic in the public neuroethics discourse, the frequency of such reflections in the academic literature is still relatively scarce. While the prominence of the neurorights debate in public opinion is crucial to ensure public engagement and democratic participation in deliberative processes on this issue, its relatively sporadic presence in the academic literature poses a risk of semantic-normative ambiguity and conceptual confusion. This risk is exacerbated by the presence of multiple and not always reconcilable terminologies. Several meta-ethical, normative ethical, and legal-philosophical questions need to be solved in order to ensure that neurorights can be used as effective instruments of global neurotechnology governance and be adequately imported into international human rights law. To overcome the shortcomings above, this paper attempts to provide a comprehensive normative-ethical, historical and conceptual analysis of neurorights. In particular, it attempts to (i) reconstruct a history of neurorights and locate these rights in the broader history of idea, (ii) outline a systematic conceptual taxonomy of neurorights, (iii) summarize ongoing policy initiatives related to neurorights, (iv) proactively address some unresolved ethico-legal challenges, and (v) identify priority areas for further academic reflection and policy work in this domain.

Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science

The size of scientific fields may impede the rise of new ideas. Examining 1.8 billion citations among 90 million papers across 241 subjects, we find a deluge of papers does not lead to turnover of central ideas in a field, but rather to ossification of canon. Scholars in fields where many papers are published annually face difficulty getting published, read, and cited unless their work references already widely cited articles. New papers containing potentially important contributions cannot garner field-wide attention through gradual processes of diffusion. These findings suggest fundamental progress may be stymied if quantitative growth of scientific endeavors—in number of scientists, institutes, and papers—is not balanced by structures fostering disruptive scholarship and focusing attention on novel ideas.

In many academic fields, the number of papers published each year has increased significantly over time. Policy measures aim to increase the quantity of scientists, research funding, and scientific output, which is measured by the number of papers produced. These quantitative metrics determine the career trajectories of scholars and evaluations of academic departments, institutions, and nations. Whether and how these increases in the numbers of scientists and papers translate into advances in knowledge is unclear, however. Here, we first lay out a theoretical argument for why too many papers published each year in a field can lead to stagnation rather than advance. The deluge of new papers may deprive reviewers and readers the cognitive slack required to fully recognize and understand novel ideas. Competition among many new ideas may prevent the gradual accumulation of focused attention on a promising new idea. Then, we show data supporting the predictions of this theory. When the number of papers published per year in a scientific field grows large, citations flow disproportionately to already well-cited papers; the list of most-cited papers ossifies; new papers are unlikely to ever become highly cited, and when they do, it is not through a gradual, cumulative process of attention gathering; and newly published papers become unlikely to disrupt existing work. These findings suggest that the progress of large scientific fields may be slowed, trapped in existing canon. Policy measures shifting how scientific work is produced, disseminated, consumed, and rewarded may be called for to push fields into new, more fertile areas of study.

The Porto European Cancer Research Summit 2021

Key stakeholders from the cancer research continuum met in May 2021 at the European Cancer Research Summit in Porto to discuss priorities and specific action points required for the successful implementation of the European Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). Speakers presented a unified view about the need to establish high-quality, networked infrastructures to decrease cancer incidence, increase the cure rate, improve patient's survival and quality of life, and deal with research and care inequalities across the European Union (EU). These infrastructures, featuring Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) as key components, will integrate care, prevention and research across the entire cancer continuum to support the development of personalized/precision cancer medicine in Europe. The three pillars of the recommended European infrastructures - namely translational research, clinical/prevention trials and outcomes research - were pondered at length. Speakers addressing the future needs of translational research focused on the prospects of multiomics assisted preclinical research, progress in Molecular and Digital Pathology, immunotherapy, liquid biopsy and science data. The clinical/prevention trial session presented the requirements for next-generation, multicentric trials entailing unified strategies for patient stratification, imaging, and biospecimen acquisition and storage. The third session highlighted the need for establishing outcomes research infrastructures to cover primary prevention, early detection, clinical effectiveness of innovations, health-related quality-of-life assessment, survivorship research and health economics. An important outcome of the Summit was the presentation of the Porto Declaration, which called for a collective and committed action throughout Europe to develop the cancer research infrastructures indispensable for fostering innovation and decreasing inequalities within and between member states. Moreover, the Summit guidelines will assist decision making in the context of a unique EU-wide cancer initiative that, if expertly implemented, will decrease the cancer death toll and improve the quality of life of those confronted with cancer, and this is carried out at an affordable cost.

Knowing when to talk? Plant genome editing as a site for pre-engagement institutional reflexivity

Citizen and stakeholder engagement is frequently portrayed as vital for socially accountable science policy but there is a growing understanding of how institutional dynamics shape engagement exercises in ways that prevent them from realising their full potential. Limited attention has been devoted to developing the means to expose institutional features, allow policy-makers to reflect on how they will shape engagement and respond appropriately. Here, therefore, we develop and test a methodological framework to facilitate pre-engagement institutional reflexivity with one of the United Kingdom's eminent science organisations as it grappled with a new, high-profile and politicised technology, genome editing. We show how this approach allowed policy-makers to reflect on their institutional position and enrich decision-making at a time when they faced pressure to legitimate decisions with engagement. Further descriptions of such pre-engagement institutional reflexivity are needed to better bridge theory and practice in the social studies of science.

Self-correction in science: The diagnostic and integrative motives for replication

A series of failed replications and frauds have raised questions regarding self-correction in science. Metascientific activists have advocated policies that incentivize replications and make them more diagnostically potent. We argue that current debates, as well as research in science and technology studies, have paid little heed to a key dimension of replication practice. Although it sometimes serves a diagnostic function, replication is commonly motivated by a practical desire to extend research interests. The resulting replication, which we label 'integrative', is characterized by a pragmatic flexibility toward protocols. The goal is to appropriate what is useful, not test for truth. Within many experimental cultures, however, integrative replications can produce replications of ambiguous diagnostic power. Based on interviews with 60 members of the Board of Reviewing Editors for the journal Science, we show how the interplay between the diagnostic and integrative motives for replication differs between fields and produces different cultures of replication. We offer six theses that aim to put science and technology studies and science activism into dialog to show why effective reforms will need to confront issues of disciplinary difference.

Research integrity codes of conduct in Europe: Understanding the divergences

In the past decade, policy-makers in science have been concerned with harmonizing research integrity standards across Europe. These standards are encapsulated in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Yet, almost every European country today has its own national-level code of conduct for research integrity. In this study we document in detail how national-level codes diverge on almost all aspects concerning research integrity-except for what constitutes egregious misconduct. Besides allowing for potentially unfair responses to joint misconduct by international collaborations, we argue that the divergences raise questions about the envisaged self-regulatory function of the codes of conduct.

Getting science priorities straight: how to increase the reliability of specimen identification?

'We advise the authors to find a native English speaker to proofread the manuscript'. This is a standard feedback journals give to non-native English speakers. Journals are justifiably concerned with grammar but do not show the same rigour about another step crucial to biological research: specimen identification. Surveying the author guidelines of 100 journals, we found that only 6% of them request explicitly citation of the literature used in specimen identification. Authors hamper readers from contesting specimen identification whenever vouchers, identification methods, and taxon concepts are not provided. However, unclear taxonomic procedures violate the basic scientific principle of reproducibility. The scientific community must continuously look for practical alternatives to improve taxonomic identification and taxonomic verification. We argue that voucher pictures are an accessible, cheap and time-effective alternative to mitigate (not abolish) bad taxonomy by exposing preventable misidentifications. Voucher pictures allow scientists to judge specimen identification actively, based on available data. The popularization of high-quality image devices, photo-identification technologies and computer vision algorithms yield accurate scientific photo-documentation, improving taxonomic procedures. Taxonomy is timeless, transversal and essential to most scientific disciplines in biological sciences. It is time to demand rigour in taxonomic identifications.

The imagined scientist of science governance

In this article, we introduce the concept of 'the imagined scientist'. It inverts previous discussions of the public as an imagined community with a knowledge deficit, to examine imagined scientists representing an actor (or group of actors) with deficits in knowledge or concern about social issues. We study how Norwegian science policymakers, on the one hand, and biotechnologists and nanotechnologists, on the other, articulate and engage with social responsibility. The article identifies what we call 'deficit trouble', when there is poor alignment of the deficits of different imagined scientists, which may lead to a stalemate in the communication between science policymakers and scientists. We argue that 'the imagined scientist' can function as sensitizing concept for further studies of science governance across a range of topics, bringing into view how different deficit logics operate in science policy.

Data Sharing in Biomedical Sciences: A Systematic Review of Incentives

Background: The lack of incentives has been described as the rate-limiting step for data sharing. Currently, the evaluation of scientific productivity by academic institutions and funders has been heavily reliant upon the number of publications and citations, raising questions about the adequacy of such mechanisms to reward data generation and sharing. This article provides a systematic review of the current and proposed incentive mechanisms for researchers in biomedical sciences and discusses their strengths and weaknesses. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were queried for original research articles, editorials, and opinion articles on incentives for data sharing. Articles were included if they discussed incentive mechanisms for data sharing, were applicable to biomedical sciences, and were written in English. Results: Although coauthorship in return for the sharing of data is common, this might be incompatible with authorship guidelines and raise concerns over the ability of secondary analysts to contest the proposed research methods or conclusions that are drawn. Data publication, citation, and altmetrics have been proposed as alternative routes to credit data generators, which could address these disadvantages. Their primary downsides are that they are not well-established, it is difficult to acquire evidence to support their implementation, and that they could be gamed or give rise to novel forms of research misconduct. Conclusions: Alternative recognition mechanisms need to be more commonly used to generate evidence on their power to stimulate data sharing, and to assess where they fall short. There is ample discussion in policy documents on alternative crediting systems to work toward Open Science, which indicates that that there is an interest in working out more elaborate metascience programs.

Focus and social contagion of environmental organization advocacy on Twitter

Agriculture, overexploitation, and urbanization remain the major threats to biodiversity in the Anthropocene. The attention these threats garner among leading environmental nongovernmental organizations (eNGOs) and the wider public is critical in fostering the political will necessary to reverse biodiversity declines worldwide. I analyzed the advocacy of leading eNGOs on Twitter by scraping account timelines, screening content for advocacy relating to biodiversity threats and, for prevalent threats, further screening content for positive and negative emotional language with a sentiment lexicon. Twitter advocacy was dominated by the major threats of climate change and overexploitation and the minor threat of plastic pollution. The major threats of agriculture, urbanization, invasions, and pollution were rarely addressed. Content relating to overexploitation and plastic pollution was more socially contagious than other content. Increasing emotional negativity further increased social contagion, whereas increasing emotional positivity did not. Scientists, policy makers, and eNGOs should consider how narrowly focused advocacy on platforms like Twitter will contribute to effective global biodiversity conservation.

Niels Bohr's Diplomatic Mission during and after World War Two

The Danish physicist Niels Bohr is best known for two major achievements: first, his model of the quantum atom, published in 1913, for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1922; and second, the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics developed together with colleagues at his institute in the latter half of the twenties. Having turned his institute toward nuclear physics, making it a pioneer institution in this emerging field, Bohr escaped from Nazi-occupied Denmark in 1943. Learning in England about the advanced state of the secret project to develop an atomic bomb, which Bohr had so far considered impracticable in a foreseeable future, he agreed to join the project. Bohr decided instantly that the prospect of such a weapon of mass destruction would require what he came to call an "open world" among nations, and he worked conscientiously toward this end until he died in 1962. In the process, statesmen, including Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt, as well as diplomats from several countries, came to encounter Bohr and his political mission. Although not as successful as his scientific achievements, his mission was considered by Bohr himself as equally important. Yet it constitutes a hitherto relatively neglected part of Bohr's career.¹.

Academic Productivity Differences by Gender and Child Age in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine Faculty During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most faculty in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) began working from home, including many who were simultaneously caring for children. The objective was to assess associations of gender and parental status with self-reported academic productivity before (i.e., mid-January to mid-March 2020) and during the pandemic (i.e., mid-March to mid-May 2020). Materials and Methods: STEMM faculty in the United States (N = 284, 67.6% women, 57.0% with children younger than the age of 18 years living at home) completed a survey about the number of hours worked and the frequency of academic productivity activities. Results: There was no significant difference in the hours worked per week by gender (men, M [standard deviation, SD] = 45.8 [16.7], women = 43.1 [16.3]). Faculty with 0-5-year-old children reported significantly fewer work hours (33.7 [13.9]) compared to all other groups (No children = 49.2 [14.9], 6-11 years old = 48.3 [13.9], and 12-17 years old = 49.5 [13.9], p < 0.0001). Women's self-reported first/corresponding author's and coauthor's article submissions decreased significantly between the two time periods; men's productivity metrics did not change. Faculty with 0-5-year-old children completed significantly fewer peer review assignments, attended fewer funding panel meetings, and submitted fewer first authors' articles during the pandemic compared to the previous period. Those with children aged 6 years or older at home or without children at home reported significant increases or stable productivity. Conclusions: Overall, significant disparities were observed in academic productivity by gender and child age during the pandemic and if confirmed by further research, should be considered by academic institutions and funding agencies when making decisions regarding funding and hiring as well as promotion and tenure.

Policy for science by ballot or by roll call? Observations from stem cell research policymaking

This study compares stem cell research policymaking by legislators and citizens in the United States. First, using exit poll results from a 2006 stem cell research initiative in Missouri, the study finds that deeply held personal values such as religious beliefs and views of abortion predominate in an individual's voting decision on this issue; second, an analysis of voting behavior by senators on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 finds that senators make their voting decisions based on their personal policy preferences rather than their constituents' preferences; and third, the complexity of the Missouri citizen initiative is compared with that of the legislation in the U.S. Senate, finding that the language of the citizen initiative is more sophisticated than the language of the legislative act. These findings provide the context for a broader discussion of the role of citizens and legislators in making policy for science.

Reexamining the Findings of the American Psychological Association's 2015 Task Force on Violent Media: A Meta-Analysis

In 2015, the American Psychological Association (APA) released a task-force technical report on video-game violence with a concurrent resolution statement linking violent games to aggression but not violent crime. The task-force report has proven to be controversial; many scholars have criticized language implying conclusive evidence linking violent games to aggression as well as technical concerns regarding the meta-analysis that formed the basis of the technical report and resolution statement. In the current article, we attempt a reevaluation of the 2015 technical report meta-analysis. The intent of this reevaluation was to examine whether the data foundations behind the APA's resolution on video-game violence were sound. Reproducing the original meta-analysis proved difficult because some studies were included that did not appear to have relevant data, and many other available studies were not included. The current analysis revealed negligible relationships between violent games and aggressive or prosocial behavior, small relationships with aggressive affect and cognitions, and stronger relationships with desensitization. However, effect sizes appeared to be elevated because of non-best-practices and researcher-expectancy effects, particularly for experimental studies. It is concluded that evidence warrants a more cautious interpretation of the effects of violent games on aggression than provided by the APA technical report or resolution statement.

'Nothing to do with the science': How an elite sociotechnical imaginary cements policy resistance to public perspectives on science and technology through the machinery of government

That policymakers adopt technoscientific viewpoints and lack reflexivity is a common criticism of scientific decision-making, particularly in response to moves to democratize science. Drawing on interviews with UK-based national policymakers, I argue that an elite sociotechnical imaginary of 'science to the rescue' shapes how public perspectives are heard and distinguishes what is considered to be legitimate expertise. The machinery of policy-making has become shaped around this imaginary - particularly its focus on science as a problem-solver and on social and ethical issues as 'nothing to do with the science' - and this gives this viewpoint its power, persistence and endurance. With this imaginary at the heart of policy-making machinery, regardless of the perspectives of the policymakers, alternative views of science are either forced to take the form of the elite imaginary in order to be processed, or they simply cannot be accounted for within the policy-making processes. In this way, the elite sociotechnical imaginary (and technoscientific viewpoint) is enacted, but also elicited and perpetuated, without the need for policymakers to engage with or even be aware of the imaginary underpinning their actions.

Towards a cancer mission in Horizon Europe: recommendations

A comprehensive translational cancer research approach focused on personalized and precision medicine, and covering the entire cancer research-care-prevention continuum has the potential to achieve in 2030 a 10-year cancer-specific survival for 75% of patients diagnosed in European Union (EU) member states with a well-developed healthcare system. Concerted actions across this continuum that spans from basic and preclinical research through clinical and prevention research to outcomes research, along with the establishment of interconnected high-quality infrastructures for translational research, clinical and prevention trials and outcomes research, will ensure that science-driven and social innovations benefit patients and individuals at risk across the EU. European infrastructures involving comprehensive cancer centres (CCCs) and CCC-like entities will provide researchers with access to the required critical mass of patients, biological materials and technological resources and can bridge research with healthcare systems. Here, we prioritize research areas to ensure a balanced research portfolio and provide recommendations for achieving key targets. Meeting these targets will require harmonization of EU and national priorities and policies, improved research coordination at the national, regional and EU level and increasingly efficient and flexible funding mechanisms. Long-term support by the EU and commitment of Member States to specialized schemes are also needed for the establishment and sustainability of trans-border infrastructures and networks. In addition to effectively engaging policymakers, all relevant stakeholders within the entire continuum should consensually inform policy through evidence-based advice.

Researcher's Perceptions on Publishing "Negative" Results and Open Access

Scientific advance is based on reproducibility, corroboration, and availability of research results. However, large numbers of experimental results that contradict previous work do not get published and many research results are not freely available as they are hidden behind paywalls. As part of COST Action "DARTER", a network of researchers in the field of RNA therapeutics, we have performed a small survey among our members and their colleagues to assess their opinion on the subject of publishing contradictory or ambiguous results and their attitude to open access (OA) publishing. Our survey indicates that, although researchers highly value publication of "negative" results, they often do not publish their own, citing lack of time and the perception that those results may not be as highly cited. OA, on the other hand, seems to be widely accepted, but in many cases not actively sought by researchers due to higher costs associated with it.

Scientific Advice at a Time of Emergency. SAGE and Covid-19

The challenge for experts in government is often described as one of speaking unwelcome truths to a resistant power. Yet, just as problematic can be instances where the advice is welcome and so left unchallenged. Two such cases in which the UK government followed flawed expert advice are considered: intelligence assessments and military advice leading up to the 2003 Iraq War and the role of SAGE (the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) during the first stages of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. Governments need to interrogate advice and make sure that they understand its underlying assumptions and implications. It remains vital to protect the independence of the experts, but to get the best out of their advice early and active political engagement is required rather than an arms-length relationship.

Are replication rates the same across academic fields? Community forecasts from the DARPA SCORE programme

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) programme 'Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence' (SCORE) aims to generate confidence scores for a large number of research claims from empirical studies in the social and behavioural sciences. The confidence scores will provide a quantitative assessment of how likely a claim will hold up in an independent replication. To create the scores, we follow earlier approaches and use prediction markets and surveys to forecast replication outcomes. Based on an initial set of forecasts for the overall replication rate in SCORE and its dependence on the academic discipline and the time of publication, we show that participants expect replication rates to increase over time. Moreover, they expect replication rates to differ between fields, with the highest replication rate in economics (average survey response 58%), and the lowest in psychology and in education (average survey response of 42% for both fields). These results reveal insights into the academic community's views of the replication crisis, including for research fields for which no large-scale replication studies have been undertaken yet.

Is research in peril in Nepal? Publication trend and research quality from projects funded by the University Grants Commission-Nepal

Institutions of higher learning are critical in promoting a knowledge-driven economy through research and training. Nepali universities receive funding from the University Grants Commission, Nepal (UGC-N) to support for impactful research. UGC-N requires grantees to publish research results as journal articles. We reviewed papers published through UGC-N funded research projects over a 10-year period (2008-2018) to assess the trends of article publication in terms of frequency and quality (based on journal impact factor and SCImago journal ranking). At most, 17% projects (n = 325) had publications and the majority of articles were published in journals that had neither SJR rank (74%, n = 240) nor impact factor (86%, n = 279). Most importantly, 10% of articles (n = 23) published in the non-ranked journals appeared in predatory journals. Although there were increasing trends of grants and research article publications in the last 10 years, journal-level quality metrics showed no improvements and suggested decreasing trends during the last half decade. The publication output varied among grant categories. Master research grants and PhD research grants performed better than those of faculty research grants in terms of publication in quality journals. We call for an increased commitment from political and academic leadership to promote quality research in Nepal.