Fernández Pinto Manuela
Department of Philosophy, Center of Applied Ethics, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
Front Res Metr Anal. 2020 Nov 10;5:588331. doi: 10.3389/frma.2020.588331. eCollection 2020.
Financial conflicts of interest, several cases of scientific fraud, and research limitations from strong intellectual property laws have all led to questioning the epistemic and social justice appropriateness of industry-funded research. At first sight, the ideal of Open Science, which promotes transparency, sharing, collaboration, and accountability, seems to target precisely the type of limitations uncovered in commercially-driven research. The Open Science movement, however, has primarily focused on publicly funded research, has actively encouraged liaisons with the private sector, and has also created new strategies for commercializing science. As a consequence, I argue that Open Science ends up contributing to the commercialization of science, instead of overcoming its limitations. I use the examples of research publications and citizen science to illustrate this point. Accordingly, the asymmetry between private and public science, present in the current plea to open science, ends up compromising the values of transparency, democracy, and accountability.
经济利益冲突、多起科学欺诈案例以及强有力的知识产权法所带来的研究局限性，都引发了人们对于产业资助研究在认知和社会公正方面是否恰当的质疑。乍一看，促进透明度、共享、协作及问责制的开放科学理念，似乎恰恰针对商业驱动型研究中所暴露出的局限性。然而，开放科学运动主要聚焦于公共资助的研究，积极鼓励与私营部门建立联系，还创造了科学商业化的新策略。因此，我认为开放科学最终促成了科学的商业化，而非克服其局限性。我用研究出版物和公民科学的例子来说明这一点。相应地，当前呼吁开放科学中存在的私营科学与公共科学之间的不对称，最终损害了透明度、民主和问责制的价值观。
