3Nd Meeting of the UNESCO Open Science Advisory Committee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
3nd meeting of the UNESCO Open Science Advisory Committee Towards a UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science 3rd meeting of the UNESCO Open Science Advisory Committee 30 November 2020 Background and Objectives In line with the Resolution 40 C/Resolution 24 of the UNESCO General Conference and to guide the consultative process towards developing the UNESCO Open Science Recommendation, an international Advisory Committee on Open Science was established by the Director-General of UNESCO in June 2020. With the guidance of the Advisory Committee that met in July and September 2020, the first draft of the Recommendation was developed based on the wealth of perspectives, proposals, and expectations that emerged from a global survey and a series of regional and thematic consultations with different Open Science actors from around the world. On 30 September 2020, the first draft of the Recommendation was transmitted by the Director-General to the UNESCO Member States for their consideration. The third meeting of the Advisory Committee was held on 30 November 2020. The main objectives of the meeting were: i) to discuss the actions undertaken and planned by the Secretariat to promote the draft Recommendation, ii) to discuss the actions by Members of the Open Science Advisory Committee in terms of: a) expert and strategic advice to support the process of the development of the Recommendation in their countries/regions; b) assistance with advocacy and communication; c) support with fundraising. The meeting was chaired by the Chair of the Advisory Committee, Prof Fernanda Beigel from Argentina. Report Presentation of the actions undertaken by the UNESCO Secretariat After the adoption of the agenda, Dr Peggy Oti-Boateng, Director of the Division of Science Policy and Capacity building, UNESCO, presented an overview on the actions undertaken by the UNESCO Secretariat following the submission of the first draft of the UNESCO Open Science Recommendation to Member States on 30 September. She mentioned that the Secretariat was receiving the comments of the Member States and other concerned actors on the first draft until 31 December 2020. Dr Oti- Boateng referred to the launch of a joint appeal for Open Science by UNESCO, WHO, and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on 27 October. With this appeal, the 3nd meeting of the UNESCO Open Science Advisory Committee three Organizations called upon their Member States, policy-makers, civil society representatives, youth networks, and the scientific community to uphold the ideals of Open Science, at all stages of the scientific process in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and taking into account the ongoing process of development of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. She also informed the Advisory Committee about the presentation of the first draft of the Recommendation in different settings and international events including the information meetings for UNESCO Member States, Open Science thematic meetings and events such as 2020 World Science Day, OpenAir conference, FAIR data Symposium, Global Open Science Cloud workshop, IAP workshop on predatory journals and Preparatory meeting of the G20. She referred to gathering comments on the first draft from i) the African Open Science actors through an online meeting on 15 December 2020 organised in collaboration with the African Union, ii) the international scientific community, through an online survey launched by ISC, TWAS, IAP, ALLEA, and iii) Indigenous People, through an online meeting on 15 January 2021. Dr Ana Persic, Chief a.i., Section for Science Policy and Partnerships, Division of Science Policy and Capacity building, UNESCO, added that the general feedback received during the Information meetings with Member States, has been positive. The draft text is characterized as comprehensive, but extra effort should be made to avoid any possible mismatch between the Recommendation and other policy instruments, with specific reference to the Nagoya Protocol. Another point of reference was the consistency with the draft UNESCO Recommendation on Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Discussion of the actions undertaken and/or planned by the Members of the Open Science Advisory Committee During this session members of the Advisory Committee shared their actions in support of the development of the Recommendation and pointed to the main issues raised in their national and regional contexts. The members from Argentina, Korea, Portugal, Serbia, Uruguay, Venezuela and Poland were involved in national discussions on the draft Recommendation involving different stakeholders, including academics, researchers, experts, policy makers and publishers. Dr Eun Jung Shin shared some suggestions from Korean experts, namely: - the inclusion in the text of the Recommendation, and preferably in its preamble, of the previous relevant actions of UNESCO in the field of on Open Access, - the need to mention innovative and positive impacts of Open Science before introducing the challenges and barriers to Open Science; and - the need to mention institutional aspects of Open Science actors. In this context, Dr Beigel also added that “students” were an important group of Open Science actors that should be included in text. Dr Iryna Kuchma and Prof Samia Charfi Kaddour reported on the feedbacks on the draft Recommendation from the meeting of the West and Central African networks on Open Science, which took place in Cote d’Ivoire and gathered stakeholders from French speaking African countries. They highlighted that according to the significant differences in the Open Science landscape and infrastructures among countries, different types of support for implementing the Recommendation in different countries should be foreseen. 3nd meeting of the UNESCO Open Science Advisory Committee Dr Grisel Romero Hiller reported that in Venezuela Open Science is perceived differently by each group of stakeholders. For instance, people in the field of technology have particular interest in open data, code and software; people working in research institutes are concerned with costs related to Open Science and the burden of related open infrastructures; and among academics, there are concerns about plagiarism. Open innovation should be more prominent in the document and there are arguments to replace citizen science with participatory science. In sum, all stakeholders need to be consulted to reach a national consensus on Open Science. Prof Gregory Randall mentioned that overall, there is a lack of awareness of the issue of Open Science. He also added that predatory practices were raised as an important issue at a discussion at the Council for Science and Technology of Uruguay. Furthermore, he reported a recent Resolution of the Central Board of Directors of the University of the Republic, Uruguay, on Open Science https://udelar.edu.uy/portal/2020/11/resolucion-del-cdc-sobre-los- desarrollos-de-la-udelar-en-el-contexto-de-la-lucha-contra-la-pandemia/ Dr Mouïn Hamzé highlighted the growing concerns raised by the significant increase of Open Access publishing costs by the key scientific journals. Dr Jane Mubanga Chinkusu pointed out that from the point of view of Zambian stakeholders, the issue of intellectual property and benefits arising from sharing of indigenous knowledge needs to be addressed more clearly in the Recommendation. The Advisory Committee also discussed some issues with the translation of the first draft of the Recommendation. In particular, Dr Beigel and other Spanish-speaking members of the Committee pointed to some inconsistencies in the Spanish translation, namely with regard to the translation of the terms “indigenous people”, “scientific practice” and “scientific enterprise”. The secretariat clarified that at this stage, only the French and English versions of the text were official, and the other four versions were provided to facilitate the discussions of the Members States. Member States will also comment on the translations of the Recommendation during the intergovernmental meeting. Members of the Advisory Committee showed interest in reviewing the four versions of the text and providing expert inputs in the translation of the Recommendation text at the most appropriate time. The members of the Advisory Committee also discussed fundraising for implementation of the Recommendation. In this context, Dr Simon Hodson emphasized that Member States commitment to this Recommendation should include the commitment to fund infrastructures and capacity building for Open Science practices, and to provide incentives for practicing Open Science. He added that the Recommendation will provide guidelines and framework for Member States to direct their investment in this area. Dr Randall added that public funds should cover Open Access publications, to prevent the financial burden of Open Access on researchers and to maintain the quality of scientific publishing. Dr Delfim F. Leão added that implementation of Open Science requires the participation of actors and investors beyond the academia and research centres. Members of the Advisory Committee agreed that in the way forward, sharing experiences, solutions and alternative practices of Open Science, across the world is important to support the implementation Open Science policies. Identifying champion countries and impactful initiatives in each region as well as supporting the establishment of institutions or public-private 3nd meeting of the UNESCO Open Science Advisory Committee partnerships prior to adoption of the