The Four Pillars of Open Science, and How Universities Can Implement Them

Professor Frank Miedema wants to make science more efficient, reliable, accessible, and relevant to society at large. A biochemist, former AIDS researcher and longtime proponent of open science, he serves as the vice-rector for research and chair of the Open Science Programme at Utrecht University, a “broad” public institution in The Netherlands.

“I like to talk about open science because I am convinced it will bring science closer to the people who will benefit from it,” Miedema says, noting that Utrecht has recently adopted the practice as a guiding principle for the entire university. “To be clear, when we are talking about science, we include the social sciences and humanities.”

Utrecht’s institution-wide embrace of open science promulgates a landmark decision by the European Union nearly five years ago. At that time, in a bid to produce better science in an open relationship with society, EU government leaders determined that universities should share data and stop relying on a one-sided evaluation system based on research articles to drive decisions about funding and promotions and the direction of research.

Open Science puts the human experience at the forefront

Instead, individual- and institutional “success” should be gauged by more relevant, “big picture” assessments: Are scholars providing a meaningful education experience? Are researchers engaging the broader public and problems of the real world in their scientific inquiry? Is that also the experience of these stakeholders in society? Are schools overcoming gender and cultural biases and other forms of discrimination? To support this seismic systemic shift, the EU adopted open science as the official framework for “doing science” in higher education.

Miedema, who was for ten years the dean and vice-chairman of the university’s medical center, shares an example of this approach in the field of psychiatry: “We used to study psychiatry from a holistic perspective,” he notes. “But in the past thirty years, scientists using the novel tools of molecular biology, discovered genetic components to severe depression, autism and schizophrenia. This gave rise to looking for new medicines as a quick fix. Researchers stopped asking, ‘How can I help these people have a better quality of life?’ Now we realize that our biomedical discoveries have done very little for patients’ quality of life. Patient participation now helps us in guiding that research.”

Says Miedema, “Open science seeks to correct that imbalance. Open science is science with a human face.”

Professor Frank Miedema, chair of Utrecht University’s Open Science Programme. Credit: UMCU

Utrecht University’s Open Science Programme is organized around four primary themes: open access, FAIR data and software, public engagement, and recognition and rewards. Credit: UU

Utrecht’s four pillars of open science

Utrecht University has become a standard-bearer for taking a thoughtful, thorough, and forward-thinking approach to implementing open science. To that end, in August 2020, Utrecht University published an initial draft of its four-year strategic plan. The impressive document, titled Open Outlook, Open Attitude, Open Science, reveals that open science now touches almost every aspect of the university and medical center—from research and funding to community building and even sustainability measures.

Miedema points out that tiny steps, not giant leaps, have brought about this shift. It’s not a revolution,” he adds. “It’s a transition.”

At Utrecht, the pioneering Open Science Programme, which launched fully in 2019, is organized around four tracks or themes:

Open access. Utrecht’s goal, which is echoed by The Netherlands’ national Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science, is to have 100% free, open access to scientific information and data by the end of 2020. The university has set up various programs to support that objective.
FAIR data and software. With the adage, “As open as possible, closed as necessary” in mind, open science allows scientists to access and share findings at the earliest stage possible so their research can be both verified and reused. When data is FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable), researchers can more quickly refine and improve upon existing methodologies. Technology and tools like open-source software, codesharing, and research data management (RDM) systems help advance this cause.
Public engagement. Beyond making scientific results publically available, open science calls for researchers to engage with the people whose lives may be directly impacted by their findings. It’s a win-win scenario: Citizens become more interested (and invested) in research that’s relevant to them, and scientists benefit by getting input and ideas from outside the hallowed halls of academia.
Recognition and rewards. Transforming how scholars are evaluated and incentivized means focusing on “real use” assessments of academic impact rather than on esoteric measures like the reputation of publishers and journals. Across Europe, as the open science approach to incentives and rewards becomes more widespread, funders and organizing bodies are adjusting their criteria for awarding grants and other financial rewards.

Professor Frank Miedema discusses the need for open science at the 2019 World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI)

Three small steps to usher in big change

For university leaders curious about bringing open science to their own campus, Miedema shares a few pieces of advice:

1. Solicit feedback. “In the medical center, we gathered 15-20 mid-career academics representing different genders, demographics, and faculties,” explains Miedema. “We asked them, ‘Five years from now, how do you want to be judged in terms of career advancement and the success of your research?’” Miedema admits he was stunned—in a good way—when the group returned with a set of indicators that could be applied to any field and included requests for peer reviews, narrative-based evaluations, academic leadership and assessments of scientific impact and public engagement.

“We’re working together to change the metrics and redefine excellence,” Miedema says.

2. Explain what’s at stake. Open science can help ease the pressure scientists feel about producing headline-worthy research fast. “To get money and survive in this system, you had to—or, to be honest, in many cases still have to—publish papers in the top journals,” Miedema explains. “But doing good research takes a lot of time. If you’re in haste, you will produce waste.

“This is thus not an academic problem. Publications will not cure patients nor a country’s public health issues,” says Miedema. “Knowledge has to be applicable in the real world which holds for all research on societal problems."

3. Learn from the business world. In business, transforming an organizational system is called change management. It requires precisely understanding the needs and priorities of the stakeholders—in this case, your faculty. “In order to make a case for change, you need to get on the shop floor and find out how people do their daily work.” Conducting such due diligence can help open science advocates and advisors make specific, concrete suggestions—for example, defining best practices when applying for grant money in the context of open science.

Open Science Video Resources

Professor Frank Miedema describes the Science in Transition initiative
Professor Frank Miedema explains why open access produces better science
Strategy Evaluation Protocol 2021-2027 adopted by research universities in the Netherlands

Europe vs. the United States: One idea, two views

As European universities increasingly start to adopt an open science approach to academia, how is the United States responding? “There’s reluctance, perhaps a little bit of fear,” Miedema acknowledges. “Some people worry that climate-change deniers or extremists will try to abuse the data. We have to be aware of possible inappropriate external influences on science. We have to be open but not naive and defend science and its validated methods.”

Politics aside, however, the number one reason for the United State’s “sporadic” support for open science comes down to something much more fundamental: funding. “The European Union is a major funder and is itself requesting the transition to open science,” says Miedema. “The same kind of financial commitment is needed in the United States. If the major funders like the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation said, ‘Let’s go for open science,’ it would happen.” Adds Miedema, “Who will walk away from their funding?”

Miedema finds the lukewarm support for open science on our shores disappointing. “Imagine there’s new research on Alzheimer’s disease or cancer,” he says. “Without open science, the information stays hidden behind a paywall. Only years later, people may get access to the findings. But in the meantime, patients have not benefited. COVID-19 shows how this can be done better by using the open science practices.”

Looking ahead

Still, Miedema is pleased that there are pockets of support in this country and cites the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) as an example with global impact. DORA was developed in San Francisco in 2012 during the annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology as a way to improve processes for evaluating scholarly research.

Ever an optimist, Miedema predicts that broader integration of open science at universities may happen within the next seven years. “People in society aren’t happy with how things are running right now,” he says. Open science “will allow us to do much better for society even with the same amount of money.”

New Pathways to Professorship

The pathway to a professorship used to be paved with research publications and successful grant applications. Teaching was something you did on the side. That has all changed. Slowly but surely, the academic world is shifting its focus to education, and Utrecht University has been at the vanguard of this process. UU adjusted its professor policy in 2004 in an effort to offer more balanced career options: from that point onwards, the university started offering professorships with a focus on education rather than research, although every professor is obviously expected to be active in both areas. UU subsequently developed a preparatory career track, a platform enabling lecturers to exchange knowledge and experiences (TAUU), and an annual two-million-euro grant program for research on educational innovation. More information is available here:

The university also encourages its professors to engage with the broader community. Specifically, Utrecht’s Centre for Science and Culture bridges the gap between researchers and citizens by encouraging dialogue and interaction, as well as knowledge-sharing and feedback. As part of a series called Story of Engagers, Utrecht’s Dr. Corvette Wierenga explains what happened when she decided to create an activity that would teach children about the brain. Not only were her pint-size “subjects” fascinated by the topic, almost no one was grossed out by the sample mouse brain.

This content was paid for by Utrecht University and produced by Inside Higher Ed's sponsored content team. The editorial staff of Inside Higher Ed had no role in its preparation.