开放科学：一场促进科学发现的全球运动

新型冠状病毒肺炎大流行促成了科学数据共享方面的实际进展。然而，要实现真正的“开放科学”，让人们可以毫无窒碍地获取科学出版物、数据，以及顺畅开展协作研究，还有很长的路要走。公共利益的理念正在深入人心，特别是在年轻一代研究人员当中，但科学知识商品化依然是现行的规则。就在我们考虑这些问题的时候，公民与科学之间的关系已然走到了危急关头。

谢里法·布卡塞姆-泽格穆里（Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri）

法国里昂第一大学（克洛德·贝尔纳第一大学）信息和通信学教授

新冠肺炎疫情之下，我们看到世界各国的研究人员已经开展了大量合作与科学知识共享，目的是为了遏制病毒、提供最佳治疗方案，还有最重要的开发疫苗。我们有幸见证，爱思唯尔、施普林格-自然和约翰威利等著名科学出版集团破除障碍，开放了数以千计的研究论文，让世界各地的科学工作者都能够通过阅读这些文章了解最新研究进展，从而加速推进自身的工作。

除此以外，数据和元数据（描述其他数据的数据）也可供科学工作者群体共享。一时间，科学知识这种公共产品摆脱了陈旧、僵化且不利于其传播的商业分配形式。

这种情况唤醒了支持开放科学的讨论。今天的人们之所以如此迫切地要求实现开放科学，是因为在发表科研成果的问题上，科学已经变得有些高不可攀了。对研究人员来说，发表成果的成本很高；而对于希望订购知名出版物的图书馆来说，订购费用也太高。

科学知识商品化

通过分析支持开放科学运动出现的历史背景，可以看出这种“封闭”源自科学知识商品化的漫长进程。自第二次世界大战结束以来，科学知识已经形成了利润丰厚的市场，每年可以为这一领域的主要行为体——科学出版商带来数十亿欧元的收入。

在当前的表述中，关于科学开放的要求更多地指向20世纪50年代以来构建科学组织的商业和管理原理，而不是强调对引发第二次世界大战的极权主义逻辑的谴责。

然而，这些要求还与美国社会学家罗伯特·K. 默顿（Robert K. Merton，1910—2003年）、奥地利裔英籍科学哲学家卡尔·波普尔（Karl Popper，1902—1994年）的早期论点有关。他们谴责科学垄断是新形式的商业极权主义，侵占了公共利益——在公共行为体和公共资金的协助下创造和生产的科学知识。

开放科学倡导可得、共享、透明、再利用、与社会互动等价值观。由于数字平台和基础设施的出现，这些价值观现在可以转化为具体的条款。此外，应当结合人类社会的发展进步来看待这种“重构”。科学必须考虑到虚假新闻传播、民粹主义兴起和不平等现象加剧等问题，持续更新自身与社会之间的联系纽带。

开放科学倡导可得、共享、透明、再利用、与社会互动等价值观

新生代

这场疫情让公众看到了与科学开放有关，而此前仅局限于学术领域的另一个现象。我们正在目睹新一代网络平台的出现，而负责管理这些平台的科学社区采用了开放科学的原则、良好做法及标准。

在这些科学社区占据重要地位的年轻一代研究人员正在不断测试、创新和实验，以期重塑科学交流模式，使之更加开放——包括对社会开放，依靠各方的评论意见来促进科学进程。这些年轻人是在网络和数字技术的陪伴下成长起来的。面对那个必须以在声名显赫、拣选严格且异常昂贵的期刊上发表论文作为“敲门砖”方可进入的科学体系，他们敢于以自身力量去撼动。

其中一些平台在传播关于新冠肺炎疫情的科学信息方面起到了重要作用。研究人员能够实时分享成果，以速度更快、协作性更强的方式开展工作。这些平台的价值在于凭借人工智能开发出的先进功能和服务，尤其是应对源源不断的资源的能力。平台不提供传统意义上的同行评议，而是尝试采用一些新模式，在动员社群协作的基础上允许论文采用某些专业知识。

比尔及梅琳达·盖茨基金会以及陈和扎克伯格基金会等赞助研究的私人机构对这些新模式很感兴趣，并给予了支持。这种支持带来了实际资助，不过正如我们曾经看到的那样，它也蕴含着回收甚至接管的风险。

对开放科学的关注不仅限于学术界，这个问题已经被列入欧洲和国际社会的政治议程。这场运动的范围不仅限于科学出版物的开放获取，还涉及研究数据的开放（遵循“尽可能开放，必要时关闭”的原则），以及21世纪特有的“公众科学”。一些国家正在着手采用促进科学知识共享的政策。

对于开放科学的关注已经写入国际政治议程

这种关注还体现在联合国教科文组织将于2021年11月向会员国提出一份《关于开放科学的建议书》，用以促进国际合作与普遍获取科学知识。建议书的内容涵盖出版物、数据、软件、教育资源和公众科学，强调应该让科学掌握在学术界和公民手中，并通过他们之间的合作来确保科学发展目标的确定能够摆脱货币化逻辑及其制约。

出版物的开放获取

在这种国内及国际政策的支持下，一个在二十年前看似“乌托邦”的研究框架已经建立起来。世界各国开放获取的出版物数量持续增加——估计到2030年，将有75%的出版物实现开放获取。人们对于研究数据开放获取的认识正在不断提高，对于相关问题和做法的理解也在日益加深。利用社交网络和视频形式开展新型科学交流，是研究人员自发形成的创意。

曾经誓死反对开放科学的主要科学出版集团，现在反而成为开放性的积极捍卫者。为支持当前的转型工作，这些出版集团正在纷纷迁移各自的数字平台。

出版商与图书馆之间关于订购费的谈判，如今变成了关于“转型协议”的谈判，重点是在出版商开办的期刊上发表论文的费用，或是以同样价格可以发表论文的数量。由于国际大学排行榜会考虑到论文发表数量，在大学努力提高国际排名的时候，这些问题就显得很重要。

目前仅存的不平等体现在有权限的读者和无权限的读者之间，而这种不平等又转移到有能力支付相关费用，可以在开放渠道上发表作品的作者和无力承担相关费用的作者之间。后者今后只能在传统期刊上发表论文，这些期刊通过订阅方式提供内容，价格非常昂贵。

由此可见，开放科学是在相关政策日益国际化，同时相关社区也更加活跃的基础上发展起来的。相关社区在原有模式之外创建了新模式，据此提出的各项倡议和实践也焕发出新的生机。逐步形成的新模式正在努力摆脱以往的垄断。围绕这些问题正在发生一场科学变革：脱离排他性的货币化逻辑，消除获取知识方面的不平等，打破因数字技术而加剧的新形式垄断。所有这些都是为了更好地应对当今社会的复杂挑战。

了解关于联合国教科文组织开放科学建议书的更多信息

拓展阅读：

《抵制研究垄断化》，联合国教科文组织《信使》，2018年7-9月

《科学是社会进步的基石》，联合国教科文组织《信使》，2017年4-6月

《科学梦》，联合国教科文组织《信使》，2011年10-12月

订阅联合国教科文组织《信使》，阅读发人深省的时事文章，数字版免费。

在社交网络上关注联合国教科文组织《信使》：微博、微信公众号“联合国教科文信使”、Twitter、Facebook、Instagram。

An analysis of the historical conditions that have led to the emergence of movements in favour of open science shows us that this “closure” is deeply rooted in the long march towards the commodification of scientific knowledge. Since the end of the Second World War, scientific knowledge has been a highly profitable market – bringing in billions of euros per year for its main actors, the scientific publishers.

In their current formulation, the demands for opening up science are more aligned with the commercial and managerial rationales that have defined the organization of science since the 1950s, than they are with a denunciation of the totalitarianism that provoked the Second World War. 

However, they are also related to earlier assertions by the American sociologist Robert K. Merton [1910-2003] and the Austrian-born British philosopher of science Karl Popper [1902-1994]. They denounced these monopolies as new forms of commercial totalitarianism that appropriated a common good, scientific knowledge – created and produced with the help of public actors and public funds. 

Accessibility, sharing, transparency, reuse, and an interaction with society are all values championed by open science. These values can now be translated into concrete terms, thanks to digital platforms and infrastructures. This “reformulation” should also be seen in the context of the evolution of our societies. Science must renew its links by taking into account phenomena such as the spread of fake news, the rise of populism, and the exacerbation of inequalities.

The pandemic has made it possible to publicize another phenomenon related to the opening up of science, previously confined to the academic sphere. We are now witnessing the emergence of a new generation of web-based platforms, managed by scientific communities that are adopting the principles of open science, its good practices and its standards.

Young researchers, who have an important place in these communities, are testing, innovating and experimenting to reinvent the model of scientific communication and make it more open – including to society, which can contribute to the process through comments. These young people belong to the generation that grew up with the web and digital technology. They are not afraid to shake up a system that is impenetrable without the “open sesame” effect that being published in prestigious, ultra-selective and very expensive journals represents.

Some of these platforms have played a crucial role in the dissemination of scientific information on Covid-19. Researchers were able to share their results in real time to move forward faster and more collaboratively. These platforms base their value on advanced features and services that depend on artificial intelligence for their development – especially to cope with the incessant flow of resources. Although they do not offer peer review in the traditional sense, they are experimenting with models that allow a form of expertise to be conferred on articles, based on the collaborative mobilization of communities.

Private research funding agencies – such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative – are taking an interest in these new models and supporting them. This support offers real funding opportunities, but it also presents risks of recuperation, or even a takeover, as we have seen in the past.

The interest in open science is not limited to the academic community – it is now on the European and international political agenda. This movement goes beyond open access to scientific publications. It also includes the opening of research data – according to the principle of “as open as possible, as closed as necessary” – and the citizen science that characterizes the twenty-first century. Some countries are beginning to adopt policies for sharing scientific knowledge.

In another manifestation of this interest, UNESCO submits its Recommendation on Open Science to Member States in November 2021, to facilitate international co-operation and universal access to scientific knowledge. These recommendations cover publications, data, software and educational resources, and citizen science, to emphasize the importance of keeping science in the hands of academic communities and citizens. They can then work together to ensure that the objectives of scientific advances are defined without the logic of monetization and its constraints.

This national and international policy context has fostered a research framework that would have seemed utopian even twenty years ago. The number of open access publications worldwide continues to grow – it is estimated that by 2030, seventy-five per cent of publications will be open access. The awareness of open access to research data is growing, and an understanding of the relevant issues and practices is increasing. New forms of scientific exchange – using social networks and video – are being improvised at the initiative of the researchers themselves.

The major scientific publishing groups who were earlier sworn opponents of open science, have now become zealous defenders of openness. To do this, they are migrating their digital platforms to support the ongoing transformation.

Negotiations between publishers and libraries over subscription rates have now become negotiations for “transformative agreements” – where the focus is on the rates for publication in the publisher's journals, or the number of articles that can be published for the same price. These issues are crucial at a time when universities are trying to improve their international rankings – which take into account the number of publications.

The inequalities that, until now, existed only between readers – between those who have access and those who don't – are being transformed into inequalities between authors; between those who can afford the cost and publish in open access, and those who cannot. The latter will only be able to publish in traditional journals that give access to their contents through a subscription, which is also very expensive.

Open science is therefore being developed at the crossroads of increasingly internationalized policies and more active communities – whose initiatives and practices are being rejuvenated and organized around models created outside pre-existing patterns. 

The new models that are emerging are trying to escape the monopolies of the past. It is around these issues that the transformation of science is taking place – freedom from the exclusionary logic of monetization; from inequalities in access to knowledge; and from new forms of monopoly exacerbated by digital technologies. All this to better face the complex challenges of society.