Ethics of Open Science: Navigating Scientific Disagreements

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 reveals scientific disagreements to the public, with advantages and disadvantages. Opportunities emerge to demonstrate the scientific process and techniques for sifting through diverging ideas and evidence. Conversely, disagreements can become personal, obscuring science, scientific methods, and understandable disagreements due to unknowns, uncertainties, and personality clashes. Volcanology and climate change illustrate.

Volcanology

During 1976, a volcano rumbled on the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe which is part of France. Volcanologists travelled there to assess the situation leading to public spats between those who were convinced that a catastrophic eruption was likely and those who were unconcerned, indicating that plenty of time would be available for evacuating people if dangers worsened. The authorities decided to evacuate more than 73,000 people, permitting them to return home more than three months later when the volcano quieted down without having had a major eruption.

Aside from the evacuation’s cost and the possible cost of a major eruption without an evacuation, volcanologists debated for years afterwards how everyone could have dealt better with the science, the disagreements, and the publicity. Open Science could support all scientific viewpoints being publicly available as well as how this science could be and is used for decision making, including navigating disagreements. It might mean that those who shout loudest are heard most, plus media can sell their wares by amplifying the most melodramatic and doomerist voices—a pattern also seen with climate change.

Insults and personality clashes can mask legitimate scientific disagreements. For Guadeloupe, in one commentary responding to intertwined scientific differences and personal attacks, the volcanologist unhelpfully suggests their colleagues’ lack of ‘emotional stability’ as part of numerous, well-evidenced scientific points. In a warning prescient for the next example, this scientist indicates difficulties if Open Science means conferring credibility to ‘scientists who have specialized in another field that has little or no bearing on [the topic under discussion], and would-be scientists with no qualification in any scientific field whatever’.

Figure 1: Chile’s Osorno volcano (photo by Ilan Kelman).

Climate change, tropical cyclones, and anthropologists

Tropical cyclones are the collective term for hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones. The current scientific consensus (which can change) is that due to human-caused climate change, tropical cyclone frequency is decreasing while intensity is increasing. On occasion, anthropologists have stated categorically that tropical cyclone numbers are going up due to human-caused climate change.

I responded to a few of these statements with the current scientific consensus, including foundational papers. This response annoyed the anthropologists even though they have never conducted research on this topic. I offered to discuss the papers I mentioned, an offer not accepted.

There is a clear scientific disagreement between climate change scientists and some anthropologists regarding projected tropical cyclone trends under human-caused climate change. If these anthropologists publish their unevidenced viewpoint as Open Science, it offers fodder to the industries undermining climate change science and preventing action on human-caused climate change. They can point to scientists disputing the consensus of climate change science and then foment further uncertainty and scepticism about climate change projections.

One challenge is avoiding censorship of, or shutting down scientific discussions with, the anthropologists who do not accept climate change science’s conclusions. It is a tricky balance between permitting Open Science across disciplines, including to connect disciplines, and not fostering or promoting scientific misinformation.

Figure 2: Presenting tropical cyclone observations (photo by Ilan Kelman).

Caution, care, and balance

Balance is important between having scientific discussions in the open and avoiding scientists levelling personal attacks at each other or spreading incorrect science, both of which harm all science. Some journals use an open peer review process in which the submitted article, the reviews, the response to the reviews, all subsequent reviews and responses, and the editorial decision are freely available online. A drawback is that submitted manuscripts are cited as being credible, including those declined for publication. Some journals identify authors and reviewers to each other, which can reduce snide remarks while increasing possibilities for retribution against negative reviews.

Even publicly calling out bullying does not necessarily diminish bullying. Last year, after I privately raised concerns about personal attacks against me on an anthropology email list due to a climate change posting I made, I was called “unwell” and “unhinged” in private emails which were forwarded to me. When I examined the anthropology organisation’s policies on bullying and silencing, I found them lacking. I publicised my results. The leaders not only removed me from the email list against the email list’s own policies, but they also refused to communicate with me. That is, these anthropologists (who are meant to be experts in inter-cultural communication) bullied and silenced me because I called out bullying and silencing.

Awareness of the opportunities and perils of Open Science for navigating scientific disagreements can indicate balanced pathways for focusing on science rather than on personalities. Irrespective, caution and care can struggle to overcome entirely the fact that scientists are human beings with personalities, some of whom are ardently opposed to caution, care, and disagreeing well.