Guest post by Ilan Kelman, Professor of Disasters and Health, building on his captivating presentation in Session 2 of the UCL Open Science Conference 2024.
Open Science brings potential dangers to scientists and ways of managing those dangers. In doing so, opportunities emerge to show the world the harm some people face, such as the murder of environmental activists and investigations of child sexual abuse, hopefully leading to positive action to counter these problems.
Yet risks can appear for scientists. Even doing basic climate change science has led to death threats. Two examples in this blog indicate how to manage dangers to scientists.
Disaster diplomacy
Disaster diplomacy research examines how and why disaster-related activities—before, during, and after a disaster—do and do not influence all forms of conflict and cooperation, ranging from open warfare to signing peace deals. So far, no example has been identified in which disaster-related activities, including a major calamity, led to entirely new and lasting conflict or cooperation. An underlying reason to favour enmity or amity is always found, with disaster-related activities being one reason among many to pursue already decided politics.
The 26 December 2004 tsunamis around the Indian Ocean devastated Sri Lanka and Aceh in Indonesia, both of which had been wracked by decades of violent conflict. On the basis of ongoing, secret negotiations which were spurred along by the post-earthquake/tsunami humanitarian effort, a peace deal was reached in Aceh and it held. Simultaneously in Sri Lanka, the disaster relief was deliberately used to continue the conflict which was eventually ended by military means. In both locations, the pre-existing desire for peace and conflict respectively produced the witnessed outcome.
This disaster diplomacy conclusion is the pattern for formal processes, such as politicians, diplomats, celebrities, businesses, non-governmental organisations, or media leading the work. It is less certain for informal approaches: individuals helping one another in times of need or travelling to ‘enemy states’ as tourists or workers—or as scientists.
Openly publishing on disaster diplomacy could influence conflict and cooperation processes by suggesting ideas which decision-makers might not have considered. Or it could spotlight negotiations which detractors seek to scuttle. If a scientist had published on the closed-door Aceh peace talks, the result might have emulated Sri Lanka. The scientist would then have endangered a country as well as themselves by being blamed for perpetuating the violence.
Imagine if South Korea’s President, seeking a back door to reconciliation with North Korea, sends to Pyongyang flood engineers and scientists who regularly update their work online. They make social gaffes, embarrassing South Korea, or are merely arrested and made scapegoats on the whim of North Korea’s leader who is fed up with the world seeing what North Korea lacks. The scientists and engineers are endangered as much as the reconciliation process.
Open Science brings disaster diplomacy opportunities by letting those involved know what has and has not worked. It can lead to situations in which scientists are placed at the peril of politics.
Figure 1: Looking across the Im Jin River into North Korea from South Korea (photo by Ilan Kelman).
Underworlds
Scientists study topics in which people are in danger, such as child soldiers, human trafficking, and political movements or sexualities that are illegal in the country being examined. The scientists can be threatened as much as the people being researched. In 2016, a PhD student based in the UK who was researching trade unions in Cairo was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered.
In 2014, a PhD student based in the UK was one of a group placed on trial in London for ‘place-hacking’ or ‘urban exploring’ (urbex), in which they enter or climb disused or under-construction infrastructure. Aside from potentially trespassing, these places are often closed for safety reasons. The scientist places themselves in danger to research this subculture on-site, in action.
All these risks are manageable and they are managed. Any such research in the UK must go through a rigorous research ethics approval process alongside a detailed risk assessment. This paperwork can take months, to ensure that the dangers have been considered and mitigated, although when conducted improperly, the process itself can be detrimental to research ethics.
Many urbex proponents offer lengthy safety advice and insist that activities be conducted legally. Nor should researchers necessarily shy away from hard subject matter because a government dislikes the work.
Open Science publishing on these topics can remain ethical by ensuring anonymity and confidentiality of sources as well as not publishing when the scientist is in a place where they could be in danger. This task is not always straightforward. Anonymity and confidentiality can protect criminals. Scientists might live and work in the country of research, so they cannot escape the danger. How ethical is it for a scientist to be involved in the illegal activities they are researching?
Figure 2: The Shard in London, a desirable place for ‘urban exploring’ when it was under construction (photo by Ilan Kelman).
Caution, care, and balance
Balance is important between publishing Open Science on topics involving dangers and not putting scientists or others at unnecessary peril while pursuing the research and publication. Awareness of the potential drawbacks of doing the research and of suitable research ethics, risk assessments, and research monitoring can instil caution and care without compromising the scientific process or Open Science.
Close
