India and the European Union have become important research and innovation partners over the past years. One of the most important areas of cooperation is Science, Technology and Innovation. EU-funded projects such as INNO INDGIO and INDIGO POLICY will present final results at a conference on 26th April 2017 in Ghent, Belgium, that will include discussions with a panel of high profile European and Indian experts. The event is aimed at stakeholders from policy & programme management level, who are involved in EU-India Science, Technology and Innovation cooperation.
A star scientist overstating the outcome of his pioneering transplant experiments may be worrying. But when these experiments are performed in humans, used a guinea pigs, before laboratory research proves the validity of the approach, we have a recipe for disaster. The recent Macchiarini scandal has led to one of the most shocking case of scientific misconduct in recent years. It reveals a lot about the vanity culture pervading some fields of research. Our outlook on what constitutes success in research may need to be revised.
Critiques are increasingly challenging the way research is being performed. Recent scandals revealing scientific fraud have made media headlines. Meanwhile, some are challenging the established ways of measuring research. It appears that research integrity is not sufficiently ingrained in the current practice of science. So much so, that it sometimes appear like an unattainable goal. To remedy this problem, some believe that part of the solution lies in making research integrity training compulsory, even though it is far from being a magic bullet.
The ultimate responsibility for good research practice lies with individual researchers. However, such practice can only flourish in a favourable research and funding environment. According to the findings of the latest report from Science Europe, who surveyed its members on research integrity policies and practice, there are still a number of measures that research organisations and funding agencies can take to guarantee a higher level of research integrity. Read on to learn about the Science Europe working group findings and recommendations.
In this interview with EuroScientist, Birju Pandya explains gift culture, which he has helped introduce in finance. He explains how this approach can be beneficial for any field of work but also in all aspects of our own lives. The gift culture is based on a non-transactional approach to work, which is instead replaced by trust-based approach, based on pursuing higher-order values, such as connection to community and ecology. While there will be resistance against this rewiring of the mind, the result is worth the effort.
Experts will discuss the latest research on healthy populations at the forthcoming EuroScience Open Forum event to be held in July 2016 in Manchester. The trouble is, until recently, often people who may be impacted by health research did not have a say in it. Several session organisers share their views on the new avenues that are explored to improve the link between health research and citizens.
Recent changes in the political landscape in Northern Europe have brought some new policies that are less supportive of science and education than previously. This is a major shift for Denmark and Finland, which have until now invested 3% of GPD in research and development. Time will tell whether such research and education cuts are a mere bleep on these countries record, or whether they will bear long-term consequences.
Scientists engaging with members of the public and other stakeholders have yet to gain recognition for doing so, as part of the career promotion criteria by which they will be evaluated. Yet, until such activity is better defined and further adopted by academic institutions, it is unlikely that further efforts would be devoted to raising the quality of these activities. In this opinion piece, based on the findings from research, Richard Holliman explains why.
What is unique about research in the era of Science 2.0? For one, it opens up important new methods of discovery. But the potential gains offered by technology can only be fully realised if research becomes open. This requires scientists to share more than ever before. And this calls for a system where all contributions, down to the most minute, are given proper credit. Welcome to the era of the fourth paradigm of research!
Reproducibility of research is at the heart of science. However, old habits die hard. And the custom of making all data fully available so that others can reproduce them is not yet fully ingrained in scientists’ modus operandi. Some likely changes that may encourage data sharing include the introduction of training modules on good sharing practice and the practice of crediting the author of the original data set used in new work. These could go a long way towards unlocking the reproducibility challenge.
To what extent the success of scientific articles is due to social influence? A recent study analyses a data set of over 100,000 publications authored by more than 160,000 authors in the field of computer science. The authors provide the first large-scale study of the relation between the notion of centrality of authors in the co-authorship network and the future success of their publications. This leads the authors, who specialise in data driven modelling of complex systems at the Chair of Systems Design at ETH Zurich, in Switzerland, to predict with high precision whether an article will be highly cited five years after publication. Such insight into the social dimension of scientific publishing challenges the perception of citations being an objective, socially unbiased measure of scientific success.
Research and innovation constantly change our world. From the Internet and mobile phones, to climate change and new cancer treatments, science and technology have the potential to transform our lives. These developments also create new risks and new ethical dilemmas. Responsible research and innovation (RRI) seeks to bring these issues into the open. It also aims to anticipate the consequences and directions of research and innovation.