Search

Most scientists recognize the importance of sharing data online in an open fashion. Nonetheless, many studies have documented the concerns that accompany data sharing activities, including loss of credit or IP, misuse and the time needed to curate interoperable data. To this end, discussions around data sharing often identify incentives that could potentially ameliorate these disincentivising concerns. Nonetheless, current Open Data discussions often rely on evidence-based studies to identify the disincentives to overcome. This results in highly specific and directed interventions. In contrast, this paper offers a different interpretation of these concerns. To do so, it makes use of the Thomas Theorem which suggests that: "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences". Using empirical evidence from sub-Saharan African (bio)chemistry laboratories, this paper illustrates how individual perceptions of research environments - whether associated with evidence or not - are highly influential in shaping data sharing practices. It concludes with the suggestion that discussion on incentivising data sharing amongst scientific communities need to take a broader set of concerns into account and offer a more creative approach to ameliorating environmental disincentives., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: Introducing data sharing practices into the genomic research arena has challenged the current mechanisms established to protect rights of individuals and triggered policy considerations. To inform such policy deliberations, soliciting public and research participants' attitudes with respect to genomic data sharing is a necessity., Method: The main electronic databases were searched in order to retrieve empirical studies, investigating the attitudes of research participants and the public towards genomic data sharing through public databases., Results: In the 15 included studies, participants' attitudes towards genomic data sharing revealed the influence of a constellation of interrelated factors, including the personal perceptions of controllability and sensitivity of data, potential risks and benefits of data sharing at individual and social level and also governance level considerations., Conclusion: This analysis indicates that future policy responses and recruitment practices should be attentive to a wide variety of concerns in order to promote both responsible and progressive research.

The life sciences are increasingly being called on to produce "socially robust" knowledge that honors the social contract between science and society. This has resulted in the emergence of a number of "broad social issues" that reflect the ethical tensions in these social contracts. These issues are framed in a variety of ways around the world, evidenced by differences in regulations addressing them. It is important to question whether these variations are simply regulatory variations or in fact reflect a contextual approach to ethics that brings into question the existence of a system of "global scientific ethics". Nonetheless, within ethics education for scientists these broad social issues are often presented using this scheme of global ethics due to legacies of science ethics pedagogy. This paper suggests this may present barriers to fostering international discourse between communities of scientists, and may cause difficulties in harmonizing (and transporting) national regulations for the governance of these issues. Reinterpreting these variations according to how the content of ethical principles is attributed by communities is proposed as crucial for developing a robust international discourse. To illustrate this, the paper offers some empirical fieldwork data that considers how the concept of dual-use (as a broad social issue) was discussed within African and UK laboratories. Demonstrating that African scientists reshaped the concept of dual-use according to their own research environmental pressures and ascribed alternative content to the principles that underpin it, suggests that the limitations of a "global scientific ethics" system for these issues cannot be ignored.

The Open Science (OS) movement promises nothing less than a revolution in the availability of scientific knowledge around the globe. By removing barriers to online data and encouraging publication in Open Access formats and Open Data archives, OS seeks to expand the role, reach and value of research. The promises of OS imply a set of expectations about what different publics hope to gain from research, how accountability and participation can be enhanced, and what makes science public in the first place. This paper presents empirical material from fieldwork undertaken in (bio)chemistry laboratories in Kenya and South Africa to examine the extent to which these ideals can be realized in a sub-Saharan context. To analyse the challenges African researchers face in making use of freely available data, we draw from Amartya Sen’s Capabilities Approach. His theorisations of ‘conversion factors’ helps to understand how seemingly minor economic and social contingencies can hamper the production and (re-)use of online data. In contrast to initiatives that seek to make more data available, we suggest the need to facilitate a more egalitarian engagement with online data resources. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

When considering the "openness" of data it is unsurprising that most conversations focus on the online environment - how data is collated, moved and recombined for multiple purposes. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that the movements online are only part of the data lifecycle. Indeed, considering where and how data are created - namely, the research setting - are of key importance to Open Data initiatives. In particular, such insights offer key understandings of how and why scientists engage with in practices of openness, and how data transitions from personal control to public ownership. This paper examines research settings in low/middle-income countries (LMIC) to better understand how resource limitations influence Open Data buy-in. Using empirical fieldwork in Kenyan and South African laboratories it draws attention to some key issues currently overlooked in Open Data discussions. First, that many of the hesitations raised by the scientists about sharing data were as much tied to the speed of their research as to any other factor. Thus, it would seem that the longer it takes for individual scientists to create data, the more hesitant they are about sharing it. Second, that the pace of research is a multifaceted bind involving many different challenges relating to laboratory equipment and infrastructure. Indeed, it is unlikely that one single solution (such as equipment donation) will ameliorate these "binds of pace". Third, that these "binds of pace" were used by the scientists to construct "narratives of exclusion" through which they remove themselves from responsibility for data sharing. Using an adapted model of technology first proposed by Elihu Gerson, the paper then offers key ways in which these critical "binds of pace" can be addressed in Open Data discourse. In particular, it calls for an expanded understanding of laboratory equipment and research speed to include all aspects of the research environment. It also advocates for better engagement with LMIC scientists regarding these challenges and the adoption of frugal/responsible design principles in future Open Data initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

‘Open data’ has recently emerged as a label for renewed attempts to promote scientific exchange. As part of such efforts, the posting of data online is often portrayed as commonly beneficial: individual scientists accrue greater prominence while at the same time fostering communal knowledge. Yet, how scientists in non-Western research settings assess such calls for openness has been the subject of little empirical study. Based on extended fieldwork with biochemistry laboratories in sub-Sahara Africa, this paper examines a variety of reasons why scientists opt for closure over openness with regard to their own data. We argue that the heterogeneity of research environments calls into question many of the presumptions made as part of open data. Inequalities in research environments can mean that moves towards sharing create binds and dilemmas. These observations suggest that those promoting openness must critically examine current research governance and funding systems that continue to perpetuate disparities. The paper proposes an innovative approach to facilitating openness: coupling the sharing of data with enabling scientists to redress their day-to-day research environment demands. Such a starting basis provides an alternative but vital link between the aspirations for science aired today as part of international discussions and the daily challenges of undertaking research in low-resourced environments. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The concept of dual-use encapsulates the potential for well-intentioned, beneficial scientific research to also be misused by a third party for malicious ends. The concept of dual-use challenges scientists to look beyond the immediate outcomes of their research and to develop an awareness of possible future (mis)uses of scientific research. Since 2001 much attention has been paid to the possible need to regulate the dual-use potential of the life sciences. Regulation initiatives fall under two broad categories-those that develop the ethical education of scientists and foster an awareness and responsibility of dual-use issues, and those which assess the regulation of information being generated by current research. Both types of initiatives are premised on a cautious, risk-adverse philosophy which advocates careful examination of all future endpoints of research endeavors. This caution advocated within initiatives such as pre-publication review of journal articles contrasts to the obligation to share underpinning data sharing discussions. As the dual-use debate has yet to make a significant impact on data sharing discussions (and vice versa) it is possible that these two areas of knowledge control may present areas of ethical conflict for scientists, and thus need to be more closely examined. This paper examines the tension between the obligation to share exemplified by data sharing principles and the concerns raised by the risk-cautious culture of the dual-use debates. The paper concludes by reflecting on the issues of responsibility as raised by dual-use as relating to data sharing, such as the chain of custody for shared data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The dual-use potential of scientific research refers to the possibility that any beneficial scientific research may be misused for nefarious purposes by a third party. This potential within the life sciences has led to much discussion regarding ways to raise awareness and limit possible harm. The concept of a ‘web of prevention’ as a multifaceted system for addressing this potential for harm provides a comprehensive method of conceptualizing a system of controls in the life sciences. The web of prevention involves multiple stakeholders, from diverse backgrounds such as science, public health, security studies and governance. Research within the life sciences relies on a number of different structures, such as waste disposal and border controls, which provide a comprehensive environment for scientists to work in. The web of prevention relies on the assumption of these systems working to support any further initiatives that are proposed. Unfortunately, in many countries around the world, these systems are insufficiently addressed, which may raise ethical problems. Structural problems may undermine the web of prevention and alter the responsibilities attributed to the individual scientist within this system. Examples from sub-Saharan Africa illustrate two pertinent structural difficulties, and these are discussed in relation to ethical responsibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]