Open science infrastructure (OSI), such as platforms for sharing research products or conducting analyses, is vulnerable to security threats and misappropriation. Because these systems are designed to be inclusive and accessible, they often require few credentials of their users. However, this quality also puts OSI at risk for attack and misuse. Seeking to provide quality tools to their users, OSI builders dedicate their often scant funding resources to addressing these security issues, sometimes delaying other important software work. 

To support these teams and allow for timely resolution to security problems, science funders should offer security-focused grant supplements to funded OSI projects.

Details

Existing federal policy and funding programs recognize the importance of security to scholarly infrastructure like OSI. For example, in October 2023, President Biden issued an Executive Order to manage the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) and ensure these technologies are safe, secure, and trustworthy. Also, under the Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace program, the National Science Foundation (NSF) provides grants to ensure the security of cyberinfrastructure and asks scholars who collect data to plan for its secure storage and sharing. Furthermore, agencies like NSF and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) already offer supplements for existing grants. What is still needed is rapid dispersal of funds to address unanticipated security concerns across scientific domains. 

Risks like secure shell (SSH) attacks, data poisoning, and the proliferation of mis/disinformation on OSI threaten the utility, sustainability, and reputation of OSI. These concerns are urgent. New access to powerful generative AI tools, for instance, makes it easy to create disinformation that can convincingly mimic the rigorous science shared via OSI. In fact, increased open access to science can accelerate the proliferation of AI-generated scholarly disinformation by improving the accuracy of the models that generate it.

OSI is commonly funded by grants that afford little support for the maintenance work that could stop misappropriation and security threats. Without financial resources and an explicit commitment to a funder, it is difficult for software teams to prioritize these efforts. To ensure uptake of OSI and its continued utility, these teams must have greater access to financial resources and relevant talent to address these security concerns and norms violations.

Recommendations

Security concerns may be unanticipated and urgent, not aligning with calls for research proposals. To provide support for OSI with security risks in a timely manner, executive action should be taken through federal agencies funding science infrastructure (NSF, NIH, NASA, DOE, DOD, NOAA). These agencies should offer research supplements to address OSI misappropriation and security threats. Supplement requests would be subject to internal review by funding agencies but not subject to peer review, allowing teams to circumvent a lengthier review process for a full grant proposal. Research supplements, unlike full grant proposals, will allow researchers to nimbly respond to novel security concerns that arise after they receive their initial funding. Additionally, researchers who are less familiar with security issues but who provide OSI may not anticipate all relevant threats when the project is conceived and initial funding is distributed (managers of from-scratch science gateways are one possible example). Supplying funds through supplements when the need arises can protect sensitive data and infrastructure.

These research supplements can be made available to principal investigators and co-principal investigators with active awards. Supplements may be used to support additional or existing personnel, allowing OSI builders to bring new expertise to their teams as necessary. To ensure that funds can address unanticipated security issues in OSI from a variety of scholarly domains, supplement recipients need not be funded under an existing program to explicitly support open science infrastructure (e.g., NSF’s POSE program). 

To minimize the administrative burden of review, applications for supplements should be kept short (e.g., no more than five pages, excluding budget) and should include the following:

• A description of the security issue to be addressed
• A convincing argument that the infrastructure has goals of increasing the inclusion, accessibility, and/or transparency of science and that those goals are exacerbating the relevant security threat
• A description of the steps to be taken to address the security issue and a well-supported argument that the funded researchers have the expertise and tools necessary to carry those steps out
• A brief description of the original grant’s scope, making evident that the supplemental funding will support work outside of the original scope
• An explanation as to why a grant supplement is more appropriate for their circumstances than a new full grant application
• A budget for the work

By appropriating $3 million annually across federal science funders, 40 supplemental awards of $75,000 each could be distributed to OSI projects. While the budget needed to address each security issue will vary, this estimate demonstrates the reach that these supplements could have. 

Research software like OSI often struggles to find funding for maintenance. These much-needed supplemental funds will ensure that OSI developers can speedily prioritize important security-related work without doing so at the expense of other planned software work. Without this funding, we risk compromising the reputation of open science, consuming precious development resources allocated to other tasks, and negatively affecting OSI users’ experience. Grant supplements to address OSI security threats and misappropriation ensure the sustainability of OSI going forward.

To learn more about the importance of opening science and to read the rest of the published memos, visit the Open Science Policy sprint landing page.

Frontline communities bear the brunt of harms created by climate change and environmental pollution, but they also increasingly generate their own data, providing critical social and environmental context often not present in research or agency-collected data. However, community data collectors face many obstacles to integrating this data into federal systems: they must navigate complex local and federal policies within dense legal landscapes, and even when there is interest or demonstrated need, agencies and researchers may lack the capacity to find or integrate this data responsibly.

Federal research and regulatory agencies, as well as the White House, are increasingly supporting community-led environmental justice initiatives, presenting an opportunity to better integrate local and contextualized information into more effective and responsive environmental policy.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should better integrate community data into environmental research and governance by building internal capacity for recognizing and applying such data, facilitating connections between data communities, and addressing misalignments with data standards.

Details

Community science and monitoring are often overlooked yet vital facets of open science. Community science collaborations and their resulting data have led to historic environmental justice victories that underscore the importance of contextualized community-generated data in environmental problem-solving and evidence-informed policy-making. 

Momentum around integrating community-generated environmental data has been building at the federal level for the past decade. In 2016, the report “A Vision for Citizen Science at EPA,” produced by the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), thoroughly diagnosed the need for a clear framework for moving community-generated environmental data and information into governance processes. Since then, EPA has developed additional participatory science resources, including a participatory science vision, policy guidelines, and equipment loan programs. More recently, in 2022, the EPA created an Equity Action Plan in alignment with their 2022–2026 Strategic Plan and established an Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights (OEJECR). And, in 2023, as a part of the cross-agency Year of Open Science, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)’s Transform to Open Science (TOPS) program lists “broadening participation by historically excluded communities” as a requisite part of its strategic objectives. 

It is evident that the EPA and research funding agencies like NASA have a strategic and mission-driven interest in collaborating with communities bearing the brunt of environmental and climate injustice to unlock the potential of their data. It is also clear that current methods aren’t working. Communities that collect and use environmental data still must navigate disjointed reporting policies and data standards and face a dearth of resources on how to share data with relevant stakeholders within the federal government. There is a critical lack of capacity and coordination directed at cross-agency integration of community data and the infrastructure that could enable the use of this data in regulatory and policy-making processes. 

Recommendations

To build government capacity to integrate community-generated data into environmental governance, the EPA should:

• Create a memorandum of understanding between the EPA’s OEJECR, National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), United States Digital Service (USDS), and relevant research agencies, including NASA, National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA), and National Science Foundation (NSF), to develop a collaborative framework for building internal capacity for generating and applying community-generated data, as well as managing it to enable its broader responsible reuse.
• Develop and distribute guidance on responsible scientific collaboration with communities that prioritizes ethical open science and data-sharing practices that center community and environmental justice priorities.
• Create a capacity-building program, designed by and with environmental justice and data-collecting communities, focused on building translational and intermediary roles within the EPA that can facilitate connections and responsible sharing between data holders and seekers. Incentivize the application of the aforementioned guidance within federally funded research by recruiting and training program staff to act as translational liaisons situated between the OEJECR, regional EPA offices, and relevant research funding agencies, including NASA, NOAA, and NSF.

To facilitate connections between communities generating data, the EPA should:

• Expand the scope of the current Environmental Information Exchange Network (EN) to include facilitation of environmental data sharing by community-based organizations and community science initiatives. 
• Initiate a working group including representatives from data-generating community organizations to develop recommendations on how EN might accommodate community data and how its data governance processes can center community and environmental justice priorities.
• Provide grant funding within the EN earmarked for community-based organizations to support data integration with the EN platform. This could include hiring contractors with technical data management expertise to support data uploading within established standards or to build capacity internally within community-based organizations to collect and manage data according to EN standards. 
• Expand the resources available for EN partners that support data quality assurance, advocacy, and sharing, for example by providing technical assistance through regional EPA offices trained through the aforementioned capacity-building program. 

To address misaligned data standards, the EPA, in partnership with USDS and the OMB, should:

• Update and promote guidance resources for communities and community-based organizations aiming to apply the data standards EPA uses to integrate data in regulatory decisions. 
• Initiate a collaborative co-design process for new data standards that can accommodate community-generated data, with representation from communities who collect environmental data. This may require the creation of maps or crosswalks to facilitate translation between standards, including research data standards, as well as internal capacity to maintain these crosswalks.

Community-generated data provides contextualized environmental information essential for evidence-based policy-making and regulation, which in turn reduces wasteful spending by designing effective programs. Moreover, healthcare costs will be reduced for the general public if better evidence is used to address pollution, and climate adaptation costs could be reduced if we can use more localized and granular data to address pressing environmental and climate issues now rather than in the future. 

Our recommendations call for the addition of at least 10 full-time employees for each regional EPA office. The additional positions proposed could fill existing vacancies in newly established offices like the OEJECR. Additional budgetary allocations can also be made to the EPA’s EN to support technical infrastructure alterations and grant-making.

While there is substantial momentum and attention on community environmental data, our proposed capacity stimulus can make existing EPA processes more effective at achieving their mission and supports rebuilding trust in agencies that are meant to serve the public.

To learn more about the importance of opening science and to read the rest of the published memos, visit the Open Science Policy sprint landing page.

This article was written as part of the Future of Open Science Policy project, a partnership between the Federation of American Scientists, the Center for Open Science, and the Wilson Center. This project aims to crowdsource innovative policy proposals that chart a course for the next decade of federal open science. To read the other articles in the series, and to submit a policy idea of your own, please visit the project page.

Ten years on from the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s 2013 public access memo, federally funded scientific papers and data are more available than ever before. Yet as we look towards the future of open science — and open science policy — it is crucial to recognize that truly open science requires that scientists, stakeholders, and the public are not only able to access the products of research, but the knowledge and insights embedded within those products. Given the ever-increasing quantity and complexity of scientific output, this calls for a new focus on synthesis and communication.

Beyond Open Access

Providing the public with access to cutting edge scientific research is a vital goal of open science, and U.S. policy, and has empowered people around the world to better understand the issues that are most important to their health and flourishing. Yet in many cases, the availability of scientific papers themselves is insufficient, or even counterproductive, for ensuring understanding and usability of state-of-the-art knowledge.

To take one example, the possibility that psychedelics will prove to be effective treatments for mental health disorders has garnered perhaps the most public attention of any psychiatric research area in recent decades. Individual papers have attracted extensive media coverage, and their availability to practitioners and the public is critical. But because of the field’s rapidly growing knowledge base and the unclear implications of individual studies, many scientists have called for the public to withhold judgment until more is known. Given this topic’s importance to public and medical stakeholders, and the potential for pervasive coverage to lead to unregulated self-treatment, there is a clear need for expert-driven, clearly communicated, and up-to-the-moment knowledge synthesis.

The idea of advancing the reach and impact of scientific knowledge through aggregation of findings is not new. The ad-hoc production of scientific syntheses by practicing researchers dates back at least a few centuries. In the last few decades, organizations such as the famed Cochrane Collaboration have provided models for standardized, rigorous synthesis within the health and medical sciences, and institutions across various other fields have followed. 

A Changing Evidence Landscape

Despite widespread awareness of the value of rigorous, open, and up-to-date evidence synthesis, existing structures are increasingly struggling to keep up with shifting scientific processes. Classic approaches to discovering and summarizing research findings on a given topic (i.e., systematic review and meta-analysis) often take over a year to produce and rapidly go out of date once published. When a field is fast-moving, a lack of up-to-date evidence aggregation leads to less efficient science and hinders evidence-based decision making. Additionally, the nature of scientific outputs themselves are rapidly changing — with innovative approaches for publication, improved standards for credibility, and changing academic incentive structures. These changes require a nimble synthesis regime.

New models for evidence aggregation and communication show promise in strengthening the ecosystem. The TRUST Initiative, for example, demonstrated the potential to embed measures of transparency and credibility into policy-relevant research synthesis, and the Living Evidence model provides a new framework for shifting synthesis away from a static – and often redundant – exercise, to a collaborative and ongoing process embedded within diverse partnerships.

The Need for Government Efforts

These developments signal a clear need for robust resources and capacity for evidence synthesis, yet the ecosystem faces barriers to its sustainability. Indeed, Cochrane, arguably the world leader in trusted medical reviews, recently lost roughly $5 million in funding from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Research, and a forthcoming shift towards open access reviews has complicated their financial picture. In the US, a collection of federal evidence clearinghouses must work hard to secure and maintain sufficient political support and resources for their vital work. In general, fast-moving technologies, slow-moving statutory constraints, and a precarious funding landscape mean that important knowledge remains too often scattered across individual studies and outdated reviews. 

Much work can and should be done within the academy, industry, and non-governmental institutions. Yet federal actors hold great power – and great responsibility – to advance the cause of trustworthy and up-to-date synthesis and communication of scientific knowledge. Existing efforts show great promise, and span extramural funding (e.g., the NSF’s Opportunities for Promoting Understanding through Synthesis [OPUS] program and the inter-agency Prototype Open Knowledge Network program), organizing/contracting expert-led syntheses (e.g., Office of Disease Preventions’ U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the cross-agency evidence clearinghouses), and efforts to generate, synthesize, and apply evidence within government (e.g., agency learning agendas and evaluation plans)

Call to Action

The Year of Open Science provides an important window to both strengthen existing efforts to promote open knowledge and launch ambitious new ones. To meet this moment, we need a broader set of voices contributing ideas on this aspect of open science and countless others. That is why we recently launched an Open Science Policy Sprint, in partnership with the Center for Open Science and the Wilson Center. If you have ideas for federal actions that can help the US meet and exceed its open science goals, we encourage you to submit your proposals here.

This article was written as part of the Future of Open Science Policy project, a partnership between the Federation of American Scientists, the Center for Open Science, and the Wilson Center. This project aims to crowdsource innovative policy proposals that chart a course for the next decade of federal open science. To read the other articles in the series, and to submit a policy idea of your own, please visit the project page.

For decades, communities have had little access to scientific information despite paying for it with their tax dollars. The August 2022 Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) memorandum thus catalyzed transformative change by requiring all federally funded research to be made publicly available by the end of 2025. Implementation of the memo has been supported by OSTP’s “Year of Open Science”, which is coordinating actions across the federal government to advance open access research. Access, though, is the first step to building a more responsive, equitable research ecosystem. A more recent memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and OSTP outlining research and development (R&D) policy priorities for fiscal year (FY) 2025 called on federal agencies to address long-standing inequities by broadening public participation in R&D. This is a critical demand signal for solutions that ensure that federally funded research delivers for the American people.

Public engagement researchers have long been documenting the importance of partnerships with key local stakeholders — such as local government and community-based organizations — in realizing the full breadth of participation with a given community. The lived experience of community members can be an invaluable asset to the scientific process, informing and even shaping research questions, data collection, and interpretation of results. Public participation can also benefit the scientific enterprise by realizing active translation and implementation of research findings, helping to return essential public benefits from the $170 billion invested in R&D each year.

The current reality is that many local governments and community-based organizations do not have the opportunities, incentives, or capacity to engage effectively in federally-funded scientific research. For example, Headwaters Economics found that a significant proportion of communities in the United States do not have the staffing, resources, or expertise to apply to receive and manage federal funding. Additionally, community-based organizations (CBOs) — the groups that are most connected to people facing problems that science could be activated to solve, such as health inequities and environmental injustices — face similar capacity barriers, especially around compliance with federal grants regulations and reporting obligations. Few research funds exist to facilitate the building and maintenance of strong relationships with CBOs and communities, or to provide capacity-building financing to ensure their full participation. Thus, relationships between communities and academia, companies, and the federal government often consume those communities’ time and resources without much return on their investment.

Great participatory science exists, if we know where to look

Place-based investments in regional innovation and research and development (R&D) unlocked by the CHIPS and Science Act (i.e. Economic Development Administration’s (EDA) Tech Hubs and National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Regional Innovation Engines and Convergence Accelerator) are starting to provide transformative opportunities to build local research capacity in an equitable manner. What they’ll need are the incentives, standards, requirements, and programmatic ideas to institutionalize equitable research partnerships.

Models of partnership have been established between community organizations, academic institutions, and/or the federal government focused on equitable relationships to generate evidence and innovations that advance community needs. 

An example of an academic-community partnership is the Healthy Flint Research Coordinating Center (HFRCC). The HFRCC evaluates and must approve all research conducted in Flint, Michigan. HFRCC designs proposed studies that would align better with community concerns and con­text and ensures that benefits flow directly back to the community. Health equity is assessed holistically: considering the economic, environmental, behavioral, and physical health of residents. Finally, all work done in Flint is made open access through this organization. From these efforts we learn that communities can play a vital role in defining problems to solve and ensuring the research will be done with equity in mind.

An example of a federal agency-community partnership is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Participatory Science Initiative. Through citizen science processes, the EPA has enabled data collection of under-monitored areas to identify climate-related and environmental issues that require both technical and policy solutions. The EPA helps to facilitate these citizen-science initiatives through providing resources on the best air monitoring equipment and how to then visualize field data. These initiatives specifically empower low-income and minority communities who face greater environmental hazards, but often lack power and agency to vocalize concerns. 

Finally, communities themselves can be the generators of research projects, initially without a partner organization. In response to the lack of innovation in diabetic care management, Type 1 diabetic patients founded openAPS. This open source effort spurred the creation of an overnight, closed loop artificial pancreas system to reduce disease burden and save lives. Through decentralized deployment to over 2700 individuals, there are 63 million hours of real-world “closed-loop” data, with the results of prospective trials and randomized control trials (RCTs) showing fewer highs and less severe lows, i.e., greater quality of life. Thus, this innovation is now ripe for federal investment and partnership for it to reach a further critical scale.

Scaling participatory science requires infrastructure

Participatory science and innovation is still an emerging field. Yet, effective models for infrastructuring participation within scientific research enterprises have emerged over the past 20 years to build community engagement capacity of research institutions. Participatory research infrastructure (PRI) could take the form of the following: 

1. Offices that develop tools for interfacing with communities, like citizen’s juries, online platforms, deliberative forums, and future-thinking workshops.
2. Ongoing technology assessment projects to holistically evaluate innovation and research along dimensions of equity, trust, access, etc.
3. Infrastructure (physical and digital) for research, design experimentation, and open innovation led by community members.
4. Organized stakeholder networks for co-creation and community-driven citizen science
5. Funding resources to build CBO capacity to meaningfully engage (examples including the RADx-UP program from the NIH and Civic Innovation Challenge from NSF).
6. Governance structures with community members in decision-making roles and requirements that CBOs help to shape the direction of the research proposals.
7. Peer-review committees staffed by members of the public, demonstrated recently by NSF’s Regional Innovation Engines
8. Coalitions that utilize research as an input for collective action and making policy and governance decisions to advance communities’ goals.

Call to action

The responsibility of federally-funded scientific research is to serve the public good. And yet, because there are so few interventions that have been scaled, participatory science will remain a “nice to have” versus an imperative for the scientific enterprise. To bring participatory science into the mainstream, there will need to be creative policy solutions that create incentive mechanisms, standards, funding streams, training ecosystems, assessment mechanisms, and organizational capacity for participatory science. To meet this moment, we need a broader set of voices contributing ideas on this aspect of open science and countless others. That is why we recently launched an Open Science Policy Sprint, in partnership with the Center for Open Science and the Wilson Center. If you have ideas for federal actions that can help the U.S. meet and exceed its open science goals, we encourage you to submit your proposals here.