Hornbostel is concerned that many of the standards by which research institutions should account for make science less efficient and productive. (Photo: Judith Affolter für VolkswagenStiftung)
And Hornbostel is concerned that many of the measures put in place to make research institutions more accountable – from excellence rankings based on the number of papers published in high-impact journals to increased pressure to focus on "useful" research areas – make science less efficient and productive. "Do we need less transparency in science? Clearly the answer is no," Hornbostel says. "But we need to find a balance. We need a system of checks and balances, but we also need to avoid overregulating to avoid killing academic freedom."
Even the open access publishing movement, which demands payment from authors to publish their work so that it can be read for free, has had unintended consequences. For every respected PLOS-One, there are dozens of shady pay-to-publish journals with no peer review procedures. Such predatory journals have increased the uncertainty for young researchers, for whom publications are an important component of career success. "Scientists really have to check now – and research institutions should provide assistance – if this is a good journal, or a predatory one?" Hornbostel says.
Too much transparency can pose a security risk to the population.
Science communication, too, plays a role. Researchers are under pressure to communicate their results to the public, which in turn is eager to hear how their tax money is being used in the lab. But headlines and press releases rarely communicate the complexities or uncertainty built into the scientific process. Take the tenacious anti-vaccination movement: The results of one poorly designed study, quickly retracted, were widely reported before the scientific community had an opportunity to properly scrutinize or respond to the findings. Though the research has been thoroughly discredited, the damage to public health has been lasting and seemingly irreversible.
And open access to data might be a security risk, too: In a world where gene editing techniques like CRISPR make it possible to genetically engineer organisms with basic equipment, publishing lab notes on experiments with dangerous viruses might be transparent – but not in the public interest.
Hornbostel sees a lot of value in transparency. But "open science isn't the answer for all the problems we have," he says. "One has to distinguish between forms of open science that are helpful and forms that will cause more problems than they solve."
1 In general, the majority of the population is also positive: According to the Science Barometer 2017 (Wissenschaftsbarometer 2017), just a small majority (50 percent of the population) have "more confidence" in science. But only 12 percent say they have little or no confidence. (Source: Wissenschaftsrat; Berlin, October 20, 2017)
2 12 % of respondents with experience as peer reviewers indicate that the quality of reviews has deteriorated significantly; 32 % indicate that the quality of reviews has deteriorated (Source: Neufeld, J., & Johann, D. (2016): 2016 Wissenschaftlerbefragung 2016 – Variablenbericht – Häufigkeitsauszählungen. Hannover/Berlin: DZHW.)
More articles within our focus topic can be found under "Science and the public" (in German only).