Road to Open Science (R2OS)

The Road to Open Science podcast series follows the path to open science through the perspective of researchers. In the second episodes

we had conversations with Kirstie Whitaker, Daniel Lakens, Anita Eerland and Loek Brinkman. We asked our guests, what motivates them personally to advocate for adapting open science practices and what is the most important role the university can play to foster open science.

What do you think about the role of university in promoting open science? What personal initiatives have you taken or are planing to take? How can researchers help each other in making science more open and accessible? Please feel welcome to engage in the discussion on twitter (twitter.com/R2OSpodcast) or on the portal of the Open Science Community Utrecht (openscience-utrecht.com/r2os-episode-2/) where you can also find all the show notes.

The music in the break is Vittorio by Blue Dot Sessions (http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Blue_Dot_Sessions/Aeronaut/Vittoro_1103)

We talked to an expert of digital innovation: Sascha Friesike, assistant professor of Digital Innovation at VU Amsterdam and associated researcher at the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society in Berlin. Sascha is one of the editors and writers of the book Opening Science, on the significant impact of internet on research, collaboration and publishing practices. In this episode he tells us more about the various definitions and the barriers to a wider embrace of open science. According to Sascha, there is a contradiction between the goals of the academic system and the incentives of the individual scientist. He describes this current situation as a social dilemma: ‘Individual rationality leads to collective irrationality.’

A shorter version of this interview was used in our first episode (https://soundcloud.com/utrechtyoungacademy/the-road-to-open-science-ep-1-a-social-dilemma). All the show-notes and discussion about that episode are available on https://openscience-utrecht.com/r2os-episode-1/. Follow @R2OSpodcast on twitter to stay up to date about the upcoming episodes.

Frank Miedema, is a professor of Immunology and dean and vice chairman of the board at the University Medical Center in Utrecht. We talked to him for the first episode of R2OS, "A Social Dilemma".

In this interview Miedema states ‘The purpose of the individual is not in sync anymore with the purpose of the system.’ In his opinion, the management of universities and big funding agencies are responsible, in the first instance, to change the current situation and they must add to their efforts to improve the incentives and reward system. A shorter version of this interview was used in our first episode. All the show-notes and discussion about that episode are available on https://openscience-utrecht.com/. Follow @R2OSpodcast on twitter to stay up to date about the upcoming episodes.

Episode 1: A social dilemma

The Road to Open Science podcast series follows the path to open science through the perspective of researchers. What is open science and what can it do for research? In this first episode, ‘A social dilemma’, we try to answer the first part of this question and will also look into the current contradiction between the goals of the academic system and those of the individual scientist. Sascha Friesike, our first guest, describes this situation as a social dilemma.

Sascha is assistant professor Digital Innovation at VU Amsterdam and one of the editors and writers of the book Opening Science, on the significant impact of internet on research, collaboration and publishing practices. He has done extensive research on adapting open science practices. In this podcast he will tell us more about the various definitions and the barriers to a wider embrace of open science. He describes the current situation as a social dilemma: ‘Individual rationality leads to collective irrationality.’

Our second guest is Frank Miedema, professor of immunology, dean and vice chairman of the board at the University Medical Center in Utrecht. He is also one of the initiators of Science in Transition. Miedema generally confirms the issues that are raised by Friesike: he expresses that ‘The purpose of the individual is not in sync anymore with the purpose of the system.’ In his opinion, the management of universities and major funding agencies are responsible in the first instance to change the current situation and they must add to their efforts to improve the incentives and reward system.

What are your opinions on the issues that are raised in this first episode? Please feel welcome to engage in the discussion on twitter (https://twitter.com/R2OSpodcast) or on the portal of the Open Science Community Utrecht (https://openscience-utrecht.com/r2os-episode-1/) where you can also find all the show notes.

Four young researchers from four faculties talk frankly about their unhealthy work habits. They wish to promote a sincere and rational discussion on how to create a healthier working environment at the university.

Wim Otto looks differently at the “cure” or career dichotomy. He does so by putting meaning above science, elevating the discussion level so high that talking about the “academic career” will sound naive. Looking from his perspective, the “cure” or career question becomes almost irrelevant. He is a successful neuroscientist with a long publication record (metrics) and inventions that are currently being used by medical doctors in their practices (impact). Despite his high performance, he expresses his dissatisfaction because he is “actively helping to get the segregation between the poor and rich bigger”. He is worried that “if there is too much separation between the winners and the losers, we end up in a very segregated world, which makes it difficult to tackle global problems.” By analyzing the science enterprise from a value-centered humanitarian standpoint, he can set free from the constraints of swimming in the mainstream. Meanwhile, even in playing the rules of the game, he collects points using his strong sense of empathy with the other players who do not necessarily share his viewpoint, for example by making his articles easy reads for reviewers and making the figures attractive for the editors. Climbing up the academic ranks is not an end goal for him, but only a middle stop to an elevated search for meaning.

With the current political climate persisting and war and climate refugees reaching record high numbers, a fundamental discussion on the rights of immigrants and natives is hard to avoid. This area of sociology is a main topic of research for Borja Martinovic, associate professor at the Department of Interdisciplinary Social Science/Ercomer at Utrecht University. She has gathered ample empirical evidence on intergroup attitudes in western societies. Her finding underlines the important role of mass media and public education in shaping the in-group identity and positive or negative attitude towards both immigrants and the “true” first inhabitants.

Ron Dotsch is a psychologist that has studied human perception of others' faces for more than a decade. For his research he heavily uses technologies such as virtual reality and computer-generated modelling. He tells me how we adjust our interaction with people based on less than a second of looking at their faces. When meeting strangers, we tend to judge their characteristics, such as trustworthiness, sexual orientation, or political views, based on a very short glance. He also tells me that these kinds of judgment are mostly wrong. Research shows that for guessing the political orientation correctly seeing one's face does not help any more than knowing age, skin color, and gender.

Ron has experienced both making it into the system and breaking away from it. Last summer he resigned from his tenured university position as an associate professor of behavioral psychology. He has left academia to work in a company. I curiously wanted to know why and I could not read it from his face.

In a pleasantly sunny summer day, I sat with Lars in Sterrenburg in the center of Utrecht

and we talked about job autonomy, his research on policy alienation, and his vision on open science.

How did she become a law professor? What can academics learn from judges in dealing with perils of the new public management? And how can slowness of law be one of its strengths? Hear the answers to these questions in my dialog with Professor Elaine Mak.