Openness in Science Is Key to Keeping Public Trust. Yarborough, M. Nature, 515(7527):313, November, 2014. doi abstract bibtex Silence stifles progress, says Mark Yarborough. The scientific enterprise needs a transparent culture that actively finds and fixes problems. [Excerpt] The Ebola crisis demonstrates once again that, despite all the posturing of politicians, it is scientists who the public looks to in times of crisis and concern. The public still trusts scientists. A UK survey this year found that they trust scientists even if they do not always trust scientific information itself. Still, the public's trust is fragile. Given how much scientists depend on public goodwill and the funding that flows from it, I am always surprised by how much scientists take the public's trust for granted. They can – and should – do more to protect and nurture it. [...] Things can and do go wrong in science in countless ways, owing to the methods, technical procedures and complexity, which can make the most innocent of mistakes exceptionally difficult to detect. Too often, scientists do not consider the need for improvements because they are content with their faith that science self-corrects. This is a bad idea. Science's ability to weed out incorrect findings is overstated. [...] Scientists need to articulate better what makes their work deserving of the public's trust in the first place. I hope that we can agree that research should satisfy three basic expectations: publications can consistently be relied on to inform subsequent enquiry; research is of sufficient social value to justify the expenditures that support it; and research is conducted in accordance with widely shared ethical norms. Making science more trustworthy then comes down to steps to make sure those expectations are met. We need a culture that prevents and fixes mistakes not by chance, but by design. How can we create such a culture?
@article{yarboroughOpennessScienceKey2014,
title = {Openness in Science Is Key to Keeping Public Trust},
author = {Yarborough, Mark},
year = {2014},
month = nov,
volume = {515},
pages = {313},
issn = {0028-0836},
doi = {10.1038/515313a},
abstract = {Silence stifles progress, says Mark Yarborough. The scientific enterprise needs a transparent culture that actively finds and fixes problems.
[Excerpt] The Ebola crisis demonstrates once again that, despite all the posturing of politicians, it is scientists who the public looks to in times of crisis and concern. The public still trusts scientists. A UK survey this year found that they trust scientists even if they do not always trust scientific information itself. Still, the public's trust is fragile. Given how much scientists depend on public goodwill and the funding that flows from it, I am always surprised by how much scientists take the public's trust for granted. They can -- and should -- do more to protect and nurture it. [...] Things can and do go wrong in science in countless ways, owing to the methods, technical procedures and complexity, which can make the most innocent of mistakes exceptionally difficult to detect. Too often, scientists do not consider the need for improvements because they are content with their faith that science self-corrects. This is a bad idea. Science's ability to weed out incorrect findings is overstated. [...] Scientists need to articulate better what makes their work deserving of the public's trust in the first place. I hope that we can agree that research should satisfy three basic expectations: publications can consistently be relied on to inform subsequent enquiry; research is of sufficient social value to justify the expenditures that support it; and research is conducted in accordance with widely shared ethical norms. Making science more trustworthy then comes down to steps to make sure those expectations are met. We need a culture that prevents and fixes mistakes not by chance, but by design. How can we create such a culture?},
journal = {Nature},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13433931,~to-add-doi-URL,check-list,open-science,science-ethics,science-policy-interface,science-society-interface,scientific-communication,uncertainty},
lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-13433931},
number = {7527}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"YzpTFRNdfmrN8gvdP","bibbaseid":"yarborough-opennessinscienceiskeytokeepingpublictrust-2014","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2016-06-22T10:19:52.366Z","title":"Openness in Science Is Key to Keeping Public Trust","author_short":["Yarborough, M."],"year":2014,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://sharefast.me/php/download.php?id=zOUKvA&token=29","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Openness in Science Is Key to Keeping Public Trust","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Yarborough"],"firstnames":["Mark"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2014","month":"November","volume":"515","pages":"313","issn":"0028-0836","doi":"10.1038/515313a","abstract":"Silence stifles progress, says Mark Yarborough. The scientific enterprise needs a transparent culture that actively finds and fixes problems. [Excerpt] The Ebola crisis demonstrates once again that, despite all the posturing of politicians, it is scientists who the public looks to in times of crisis and concern. The public still trusts scientists. A UK survey this year found that they trust scientists even if they do not always trust scientific information itself. Still, the public's trust is fragile. Given how much scientists depend on public goodwill and the funding that flows from it, I am always surprised by how much scientists take the public's trust for granted. They can – and should – do more to protect and nurture it. [...] Things can and do go wrong in science in countless ways, owing to the methods, technical procedures and complexity, which can make the most innocent of mistakes exceptionally difficult to detect. Too often, scientists do not consider the need for improvements because they are content with their faith that science self-corrects. This is a bad idea. Science's ability to weed out incorrect findings is overstated. [...] Scientists need to articulate better what makes their work deserving of the public's trust in the first place. I hope that we can agree that research should satisfy three basic expectations: publications can consistently be relied on to inform subsequent enquiry; research is of sufficient social value to justify the expenditures that support it; and research is conducted in accordance with widely shared ethical norms. Making science more trustworthy then comes down to steps to make sure those expectations are met. We need a culture that prevents and fixes mistakes not by chance, but by design. How can we create such a culture?","journal":"Nature","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13433931,~to-add-doi-URL,check-list,open-science,science-ethics,science-policy-interface,science-society-interface,scientific-communication,uncertainty","lccn":"INRMM-MiD:c-13433931","number":"7527","bibtex":"@article{yarboroughOpennessScienceKey2014,\n title = {Openness in Science Is Key to Keeping Public Trust},\n author = {Yarborough, Mark},\n year = {2014},\n month = nov,\n volume = {515},\n pages = {313},\n issn = {0028-0836},\n doi = {10.1038/515313a},\n abstract = {Silence stifles progress, says Mark Yarborough. The scientific enterprise needs a transparent culture that actively finds and fixes problems.\n\n[Excerpt] The Ebola crisis demonstrates once again that, despite all the posturing of politicians, it is scientists who the public looks to in times of crisis and concern. The public still trusts scientists. A UK survey this year found that they trust scientists even if they do not always trust scientific information itself. Still, the public's trust is fragile. Given how much scientists depend on public goodwill and the funding that flows from it, I am always surprised by how much scientists take the public's trust for granted. They can -- and should -- do more to protect and nurture it. [...] Things can and do go wrong in science in countless ways, owing to the methods, technical procedures and complexity, which can make the most innocent of mistakes exceptionally difficult to detect. Too often, scientists do not consider the need for improvements because they are content with their faith that science self-corrects. This is a bad idea. Science's ability to weed out incorrect findings is overstated. [...] Scientists need to articulate better what makes their work deserving of the public's trust in the first place. I hope that we can agree that research should satisfy three basic expectations: publications can consistently be relied on to inform subsequent enquiry; research is of sufficient social value to justify the expenditures that support it; and research is conducted in accordance with widely shared ethical norms. Making science more trustworthy then comes down to steps to make sure those expectations are met. We need a culture that prevents and fixes mistakes not by chance, but by design. How can we create such a culture?},\n journal = {Nature},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13433931,~to-add-doi-URL,check-list,open-science,science-ethics,science-policy-interface,science-society-interface,scientific-communication,uncertainty},\n lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-13433931},\n number = {7527}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Yarborough, M."],"key":"yarboroughOpennessScienceKey2014","id":"yarboroughOpennessScienceKey2014","bibbaseid":"yarborough-opennessinscienceiskeytokeepingpublictrust-2014","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-13433931","~to-add-doi-URL","check-list","open-science","science-ethics","science-policy-interface","science-society-interface","scientific-communication","uncertainty"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["openness","science","key","keeping","public","trust","yarborough"],"keywords":["check-list","open-science","science-ethics","science-policy-interface","science-society-interface","scientific-communication","uncertainty","*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-13433931","~to-add-doi-url"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["5S2zj2hKW8TWTkuMq"]}