I have to\nrecognize I had a mistaken concept about Open Science. In a deep part of me,\nthere was the reminiscent idea that opened means free. In the past, I tried to\nconvince other people that we have to be conscious about the differences\nbetween public and free, and the necessity of give to general population always\na normal bill as a way to raise their awareness of the cost of each service to\nthe State and achieve more responsible citizens. Now I feel a little bit guilty\nbecause I did not put my focus on my own field, and I did not make the same\nreasoning. Perhaps first time I saw an open access paper I should have think\nabout the requirement for accessible information, instead the convenience of\nnot having to pay for it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is\nhopeful to see how a great number of people, institutions, enterprises and\nother stakeholders are leading a change in the concept of science, in the way\nof transmit data and ensure its fairness, in the manner of share knowledge,\ntalent, resources between Universities, recruit talent, etc. And that is what I\nlearnt during the workshop: different visions from various angles of some\norganizations on how this transition to Open Science should be: its philosophy,\nobjectives and strategies, what can contribute each link of the chain to this\nnew world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Maybe\nbecause I am at the beginning of my career path as a scientist, or I am just a\ndreamer, I strongly believe that all PhD students are open scientists, even\nhaving fought for our grants or positions with many people. The reason is\nsimple: we need to learn almost everything. If you want to go further, deeper,\nyou always need somebody\u2019s help. And its knowledge. Therefore it is not wild to\nthink that the more communicated we are, the faster we will progress as a\nsociety. And that implies that citizens must participate deeper and actively in\nscience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is\ndifficult to transmit that we are trying to build a better world when Science\nsometimes seems is just a business, a way of living like any other profession.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Our main\nproblem today is insecurity, especially in our country, where the inversion in\nresearch and development is laughable. Four years doing our thesis for the\nminimum salary or even without any compensation, just to come back to the\nbeginning: try to get another position as a postdoc, competition, bureaucracy,\nuncertain future. It is difficult nowadays to get funds if you are not in a big\nlab, prestigious university, and this competition instead of collaboration is\ndangerous for the future of some institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We are\npressed to publish, to be mentioned, to \u00abenter\u00bb in this world even assuming\nthat is not the most proper way, we have to play the game with the ancient\nrules. Sometimes it is very difficult to be concentrated in your research when\nyour contract is next to expire, when you don’t know if you are going to\ncontinue due to funds, if every three years you have to move to another place.\nStability is the main challenge for us.<\/p>\n
I have to recognize I had a mistaken concept about Open Science. In a deep part of me, there was the reminiscent idea that opened means free. In the past, I tried to convince other people that we have to be conscious about the differences between public and free, and the necessity of give to […]<\/p>\n