In its latest statement, the European federation of academies of sciences and humanities (ALLEA) evaluates the undesirable effects of current “big deals” and provides recommendations for research institutions, libraries, and policymakers on how to arrive at a more equitable system for sharing and accessing research publications under the new EU copyright rules. Read the full statement here.
With the number of scholarly publications shared via the Gold Open Access model on the rise, access to the results of (often publicly funded) research is at an all-time high. However, breaking down these barriers for readers has come at the expense of increased barriers for authors, who often face substantial article processing charges (APCs) to publish their work immediately as Open Access.
This has led to a further increase in the exorbitant costs spent on scholarly publishing and creates significant disadvantages for researchers from the Global South, underfunded researchers in the social sciences and humanities, and early career researchers, among others. So-called “Big Deals” – “read and publish agreements” between (consortia of) research libraries, institutions, and universities on the one hand, and scientific publishers on the other – have further exacerbated these inequities and contributed to the consolidation of the already dominant market position of the major commercial publishers.
In addition, ALLEA is concerned that the conditions of the “Big Deals” fail to adequately reflect the new rules on copyright law in the European Union (EU), and do not fairly value the creative and research endeavours of academics and their institutions, as well as their investment and efforts to generate research results to the benefit of the public. While EU and national copyright laws provide for a variety of rules intended to facilitate the free use and sharing of research publications, the current “Big Deals” do not generally factor in these statutory free uses.
To arrive at a more equitable and affordable system that takes into account the new EU copyright rules, ALLEA recommends:
Researchers and libraries to better consider their rights under the new EU copyright rules when negotiating the next generation of deals.
Researchers and libraries to depart from the rights assignment model that still prevails today.
Harmonisation of EU national copyright legislation and introduction of EU-wide Secondary Publication Rights without embargo.
Further development of a community-driven non-profit publishing ecosystem.
https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Visual_statement_open_access_dec_2022.jpg16382457Joséphine Dusolhttps://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/allea-30-logo-300x90.pngJoséphine Dusol2022-12-12 13:55:202022-12-12 14:16:10ALLEA Advocates for EU-Wide Secondary Publication Rights and Better Negotiation of Future “Big Deals”
When considering the potential of New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) for crop improvement, such as genome editing using the CRISPR-Cas technology, (see ALLEA’s work on New Genomic Techniques), the protection of intellectual property (IP) rights is a critical concern. To address these issues in support of a more equitable system, ALLEA has established a dedicated Task Force consisting of some of Europe’s leading experts on the topic.
At present, academic researchers and small breeders are concerned they are unable to fully benefit from these powerful technologies as they are typically being patented and monopolized by a number of big multinational companies. In addition, because the changes introduced by NGTs can often not be distinguished from those created by conventional methods, traditional breeders are concerned they might unwilfully infringe a patent that protects a variety they were developing over many years by traditional breeding techniques.
In summary, the current EU patent and licensing system can be considered a clear competitive disadvantage for academic researchers and smaller breeders, and its complexity creates uncertainty for those willing to use NGTs and their products. The new ALLEA Task Force will therefore explore the central question:
How can we ensure that European researchers, small/traditional breeders, and farmers can avoid the unwilful infringement of patents and fully benefit from New Genomic Techniques and their products?
The Task Force met online for the first time on Tuesday 15 November 2022, and intends to present its findings and recommendations in an ALLEA Statement aimed at breeders, researchers, and national and EU policymakers. Several potential solutions will be explored, ranging from promoting increased transparency and skills to navigate existing patents and licences to possible recommendations for reforming the European patent system. The Task Force will listen to a variety of perspectives, including those from patent holders, small breeders, and NGOs, in their search for solutions that support a more equitable and balanced system.
For detailed information on the Task Force’s composition, see the dedicated webpage.
https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/zoe-schaeffer-H0iAXFekiWo-unsplash-scaled.jpg17072560Dino Tramontanihttps://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/allea-30-logo-300x90.pngDino Tramontani2022-12-05 15:17:372022-12-12 13:20:37ALLEA Launches New Task Force to Investigate the Intellectual Property System for New Genomic Techniques
Technology has immense power to shape our world in a variety of spheres, from communication to education, work, health, transportation, climate, politics, and security. New and innovative technologies with such gross potential for wide socio-cultural and economic impact (often referred to as “emerging technologies”) are thus often fraught with ethical questions – which range from concerns about privacy breaches to manipulation, fairness, and the exacerbation of power gaps and exploitation. Because they could affect every aspect of our lives, it is important to acknowledge and address these ethical questions right at the outset – as early in the process of technological design and implementation.
In this relatively nascent field of emerging technologies and ethics, TechEthos (Ethics for Technologies with High Socio-Economic Impact), a Horizon 2020-funded project, published a report on the ethical issues that need to be considered for three technology families: Digital eXtended Reality, including the techniques of visually eXtended Reality (XR) and the techniques of Natural Language Processing (NLP), neurotechnologies, and climate engineering, including Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Solar Radiation Management (SRM).
Dr Laurynas Adomaitis, Tech Ethicist, CEA
In this Digital Salon interview, we speak with the lead author of the report, Dr Laurynas Adomaitis, Tech Ethics Researcher at Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives (CEA), on the ethical dilemmas inherent to emerging technologies, how researchers can effectively use the tools in the report, and the role for policymakers and funding organisations in promoting the integration of ethics into every stage of technology research.
Question: Are the core ethical dilemmas in emerging technologies fundamentally similar to ethical considerations inherent to all research? How are they different?
Laurynas Adomaitis: Emerging technologies are often based in research, so there definitely is overlap between the core dilemmas we discuss in research ethics. For example, while looking at climate engineering, we discovered that one point of contention was whether research into Solar Radiation Management (reflecting/refracting solar energy back into space) is ethically justified. One of the arguments against it is that researching such techniques presents the world with a “plan B”, which may distract from climate change mitigation efforts.
We also found a lot of issues with consent in XR (extended reality) and neurotech, which cuts across research ethics. For example, there are ethical concerns with so-called “deadbots” – chatbots constructed based on conversational data from deceased individuals. How is consent possible for an application that did not exist when the person was conscious? Likewise, in neurotech we must be aware of changing people’s mental states. For example, sometimes a treatment is required before consent can be given, but then can it be revoked by the patient? Or, if a BCI (brain-computer interface) changes a person’s mental states, can it also change how they feel about consent?
“Each technology family has many issues and at least one beastly challenge to conquer.”
Q: Which of the three technology families did you find particularly fraught with ethical issues? Why?
LA: The three technology families – XR, neurotech, and climate engineering – are at very different stages of development. Many applications in XR are already in production and available to the public; neurotech is starting in medical tests but is mainly based on future promise, whereas climate engineering is only beginning to be explored with huge issues on the horizon.
Each technology family has many issues and at least one beastly challenge to conquer. For climate engineering, it’s irreversibility – can we make irrevocable changes to the planet? For neurotech, it’s autonomy – how can we enhance cognitive abilities, while respecting independent and free thinking? For XR, it’s a set of particular issues, like nudging, manipulation, deep fakes, concerns about fairness, and others. I think it’s a wider array of issues for XR because it is already hitting the reality of implementation, where many practical problems arise. There are even skeptical researchers who think that virtual realities should not exist at all because of the moral corruption they may cause, especially with children. This fundamental issue still lingers spurring the need for empirical studies.
Q: What were some overarching ethical themes common to all three technology families?
LA: There are cross-cutting issues that relate to uncertainty, novelty, power, and justice. But the most important aspect that kept reappearing was the narratives about new technologies that are found in lay reactions to it.
We used a framework to elucidate this in the report that was developed in the DEEPEN (Deepening ethical engagement and participation in emerging Nanotechnologies) project over 10 years ago. It worked very well in the context of our ethical analysis. Many concerns were along the lines of five tropes of lay reactions to novelty: “Be careful what you wish for”, based on the motifs of exact desire and too big a success; “Messing with Nature”, based on the motifs of irreversibility and power; “Opening Pandora’s box”, based on the motifs of irreversibility and control; “Kept in the dark”, based on the motifs of alienation and powerlessness; and “The rich get richer, the poor get poorer”, based on the motifs of injustice and exploitation. Although these reactions are natural, and sometimes justified, we had to keep asking ourselves whether they are the most pressing ones. It’s still astonishing that the same narratives apply across times and technologies.
“There are cross-cutting issues that relate to uncertainty, novelty, power, and justice. But the most important aspect that kept reappearing was the narratives about new technologies that are found in lay reactions to it.”
Source: TechEthos Report on the Analysis of Ethical Issues
Q: How can the research community best implement the tools/findings in this report?
LA: The report is structured in a hierarchical way, starting with some core dilemmas that are the foundation of reasoning, then there are applications and, finally, values and principles. The value sections are the most important for researchers and practitioners. They cover the key considerations, and each value section ends with a set of questions. We wrote these questions with a researcher in mind. What should one consider when trying to explore, design, and implement the technology? What are the checks and balances with respect to the value in question? We intended these questions to be operationalisable so they offer the best value for implementation.
Q: How can policymakers better support the integration of “ethics by design” in emerging technologies?
LA: Technology research should be in step with ethical research on the technologies. The time difference between the development in tech and ethical or policy research creates a divide, where we have to work retroactively, and it’s very inefficient. Imagine if carbon-intensive technology and industry were developed alongside climate preservation from the very beginning. Of course, there have been philosophers and ethicists, like Hans Jonas, as early as the 1970s calling for ecological activism and responsibility for future generations. But they were mavericks and pioneers, working with passion but without support. We should try to open up these perspectives and take them seriously at the policy level when the technologies are emerging.
“Technology research should be in step with ethical research on the technologies. The time difference between the development in tech and ethical or policy research creates a divide, where we have to work retroactively, and it’s very inefficient.”
Q: What role can funding organisations play in centering ethics in emergent tech?
LA: It’s a difficult question to answer since causality is very uncertain in provoking ethical reflection. Ethical reflection is, as we like to call it, opaque. It’s not always transparent when it happens or why. What will actually cause people – researchers and industry alike – to stop and reflect? In our report, we avoided guidelines or directives that would offer “solutions”. Instead, we focused on questions that should be asked. Questions are better suited for starting a reflection on ethical issues. For example, if you’re building a language model, how will it deal with sensitive historical topics? How will it represent ideology? Will it have equal representation for different cultures and languages?
There is no “one way” to address these challenges, but the questions are important and researchers should at least be aware of them. If the standards for dealing with them are not clear yet, I would prefer to see each research project find their own way of tackling them. That will lead to more original approaches and, if a working consensus is found, standardisation. But the central role played by the funding bodies could be to guide the researchers into the relevant questions and start the reflection. We intended our report to provide some instruction on that.
You can read our summary of the TechEthos report by Dr Adomaitis on the analysis of ethical issues in Digital eXtended Reality, neurotechnologies, and climate engineering here, and the full report here.
TechEthos is led by AIT Austrian Institute of Technology and will be carried out by a team of ten scientific institutions and six science engagement organisations from 13 European countries over a three-year period. ALLEA is a partner in the consortium of this project and will contribute to enhancing existing legal and ethical frameworks, ensuring that TechEthos outputs are in line with and may complement future updates to The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.
https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/shutterstock_1306244497-scaled.jpg12802560maria ronaldhttps://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/allea-30-logo-300x90.pngmaria ronald2022-11-29 14:27:562022-12-07 11:45:59“Questions, Not Answers, Are Better Suited to Start a Reflection on Ethical Issues”
Europe’s academies and networks played a central role in the scientific advice on crisis management handed to European Commissioners today in the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
At the Commission’s request, independent experts from SAPEA, which is part of the Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism, presented an Evidence Review Report to Commissioners Gabriel and Lenarčič. This report contains the latest scientific evidence and evidence-based policy options on how the EU can improve its strategic crisis management which informed the Scientific Opinion of the European Commission’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors.
ALLEA President and Chair of the SAPEA Board, Antonio Loprieno, says that “we gathered the best scientists from around Europe to provide an interdisciplinary report on crisis management“. This report will be the basis not only for quality policy proposals, but also for much further academic work on the topic, Loprieno added.
The Evidence Review Report by SAPEA, which draft was coordinated by ALLEA, highlights that strategic crisis management needs to be aligned with broader policy objectives: “Crises are becoming the norm, not the exception. The strategic decisions we make during crises shape our society in the long run” says the Chair of the SAPEA working group, Prof. Tina Comes.
The report also stresses that crises are changing in nature, crossing borders and sectors, and having cascading and overlapping effects on society, the economy, and the environment. They amplify inequalities and hit the most vulnerable the hardest. Therefore, the EU needs to rethink approaches to risk and crisis management.
The Group of Chief Scientific Advisors are seven eminent scientists who advise European Commissioners on big societal challenges informed by SAPEA’s scientific evidence. Among others, the advisors make the following recommendations:
The EU should plan and prepare for the entire timescale of crises, from preparedness to response and recovery.
The EU should create stronger synergies across European institutions and between European Institutions and Member States; the Emergency Response and Coordination Centre could play a larger role in facilitating the exchange of information and needs.
To increase the EU’s resilience, the Advisors advocate for more scalable, rapidly deployable, and efficient EU financial tools.
Decision-makers at all levels should also work closely with civil society and the private sector.
Alongside scientific reports, the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies published a statement that highlights that the fundamental European value of solidarity is essential. Solidarity can be a guiding principle for overcoming crises and strengthening societal resilience.
The launch of these publications is followed by the webinar Entangled Crisis: How Can the EU Help? on Thursday 24 November, 10:00 CET. Registrations are still open here.
The policy recommendations from the Future of Science Communication 2.0 can now be found on the interactive portal documenting both the first virtual conference, held in June 2021, and FSCC 2.0. The portal includes keynote speeches, panel discussions, and short summaries and video snapshots of the four interactive workshops.
The Open Science movement, characterised by the open sharing of ideas, theories, methods, data, and evidence to form the basis for a collaborative and innovative global research system, is gaining ground across the world – no doubt, accelerated by the unprecedented sharing of scientific insights during the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic. The crisis clearly showed that by opening up research outputs early to wider review and feedback, we stand to create more agile research ecosystems that are capable of delivering effective solutions to global challenges.
Dr Jessica Polka heads ASAPbio, a scientist-driven non-profit promoting transparency and innovation in life science communication.
One important lever for change in the way science is share and communicated is the use of preprints – the advance versions of scientific papers that are published before the formal peer review process. Preprints are thought to allow for the faster exchange of research, and enable a more open, collaborative, and inclusive research culture.
In this conversation with Dr Jessica Polka, Executive Director and Co-Founder of ASAPbio (Accelerating Science and Publication in biology), we talk about the productive use of preprints, as well as the critical role for transparent and open peer review in making research more accessible, diverse, inclusive and equitable.
Question: What drove you towards working to make scientific publishing more open and transparent?
Jessica Polka: As a postdoc, I felt that the incentives for early career researchers often run counter to the goals of efficient and collaborative knowledge generation – for instance, the push to place greater importance on publishing in a high-impact journal rather than on ensuring reproducibility, to avoid sharing data for years until it forms a “complete story,” or to value shallow metrics above social impact. I saw preprints as a practical way for many researchers to engage with open science, which would not only benefit individual researchers but also the research enterprise as a whole.
However, open communication about research doesn’t end when someone posts a preprint. Thus, we expanded our work at ASAPbio to include open peer review, both within and outside of journals.
Q:Could you tell me a bit more about preprints and how they could improve research culture and output?
JP: Preprints remove barriers to sharing, reading, and collaborating. In contrast to a traditional journal article that might be hidden from all but a handful of peer reviewers for months or even years before publication, preprints enable everyone around the world to have rapid access to new research. This puts authors in control of dissemination. This system is also compatible with traditional journals, thus enabling people to participate in both open science and more conventional workflows simultaneously.
Furthermore, when people share a journal article, they’re putting out a product that is more or less “set in stone”, and any comments or suggestions for improvement are not likely to be incorporated. By contrast, when someone shares a preprint, they can choose to share a draft in provisional form at a time when they can incorporate feedback and improve their work, maybe even add new collaborators to the project. This creates a genuinely productive dialogue.
“The traditional peer review system in journals is built on trust: authors and readers trust that when a paper is published in a given journal, it has been through a rigorous process. In turn, the editors of journals select reviewers they know they can rely on, creating a “club” of sorts.”
What are the benefits for individual researchers, especially early career researchers?
JP: Preprints allow everyone to participate in providing feedback on a paper. Besides social media and the commenting functionalities of preprint servers, there is a thriving ecosystem of projects that provide peer review on preprints, ranging from projects that highlight interesting preprints (e.g., preLights), to those that automate screening (e.g., ASWG), and provide editor-organised review (e.g., Review Commons, Peer Community In). Many of these projects, such as PREreview and ASAPbio’s own Crowd preprint review activities, are directly beneficial to early career researchers who might be more comfortable commenting anonymously, collaborating with others, or covering specific areas of a paper. And because these projects invite researchers to comment on a paper outside the context of a journal, reviewers can focus on the quality and merit of the science as opposed to whether it meets certain criteria for publication, which can only improve research outputs as whole.
Q: What do you think are the challenges in making the broader peer review system more inclusive?
JP: The traditional peer review system in journals is built on trust: authors and readers trust that when a paper is published in a given journal, it has been through a rigorous process. In turn, the editors of journals select reviewers they know they can rely on, creating a “club” of sorts. Furthermore, as the identities of reviewers and editors are often not known (which is sometimes necessary to protect the vulnerable from retaliation), there’s the potential for favouritism and bias.
Q: Do preprints make research more inclusive?
JP: Preprints are free to read and to post, and the screening process of preprint servers is more “light-weight” than peer review at a journal. This lowers barriers to sharing research, and it means that anyone, not just people invited by a journal, can act as a peer reviewer. However, there are disparities in who is posting preprints, with more representation from select countries and institutions (see Abdill et al.). We recognise that preprints alone aren’t a complete solution, and we are working towards broader cultural change in how research is created, communicated, and assessed.
“…since peer review decisions have significant impact on the authors under review, often making or breaking opportunities for funding, hiring, and promotion, it’s important that peer review proceeds fairly.”
Q: What are some first steps we can take within the peer review system to increase equity and opportunities for underrepresented groups (women, researchers from the global south, unaffiliated researchers) in research?
JP: First, we need a stronger evidence base from which we can recommend interventions. Journals and peer review projects could collect more demographic information from peer reviewers, authors, and editors to ensure that interventions can be studied more systematically. Tools such as PREreview’s bias reflection guide, for example, could be integrated into review workflows, which could help to counteract homophily.
Finally, we need better systems for recommending (and building trust in) reviewers that come from outside a given editor’s network. For example, public reviews, whether on published articles or on preprints (see our Preprint Reviewer Recruitment Network), could serve as work samples to demonstrate that a researcher would make a strong reviewer.
Q: What are some of the “success stories” from ASAPbio that have led to an increase in transparency in the peer review system?
JP: After our 2018 meeting on peer review, over 300 journals signed an open letter committing to enabling the publication of peer review reports alongside published articles. This surfaces the important scholarship involved in peer review, helps readers better understand the paper, and the transparency improves the integrity of the peer review process. On the preprint side, dozens of researchers have signed a pledge to publish reviews they have written alongside preprints. In addition to the many benefits to preprints listed above, this action opens the door to the reuse of peer reviews, which can serve as a catalyst for more public conversations about research.
“As a postdoc, I felt that the incentives for early career researchers often run counter to the goals of efficient and collaborative knowledge generation…”
Q: In your opinion, how would improving diversity, inclusion, and equity in the peer review system contribute to scientific progress?
JP: Peer review can improve the robustness and clarity of the vast body of scientific literature so it’s important that it works as well as possible. Evidence has shown that diverse groups are better at solving problems. From this standpoint, it’s vital that we bring a variety of perspectives into editorial processes.
Furthermore, since peer review decisions have significant impact on the authors under review, often making or breaking opportunities for funding, hiring, and promotion, it’s important that peer review proceeds fairly. Ultimately, fair processes can help to preserve the diversity we need to solve important research questions.
This interview is part of the ALLEA Digital Salon Women in Science Series. Dr Jessica Polka will moderate a panel discussion at the upcoming webinar on Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Accessibility (IDEA) in the scholarly peer review system, co-organised by ALLEA, GYA (The Global Young Academy) and STM (International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers). You can find out more about this webinar, which will tackle the challenges and opportunities for improving IDEA in peer review here.
About Jessica Polka
Dr Jessica Polka serves as Executive Director of ASAPbio, a researcher-driven non-profit organisation working to promote innovation and transparency in life sciences publishing in areas such as preprinting and open peer review. Prior to this, she performed postdoctoral research in the department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School following a PhD in Biochemistry & Cell Biology from UCSF. Dr Polka is also a Plan S Ambassador, an affiliate of the Knowledge Futures Group, an independent non-profit organisation that works to make knowledge more open and accesible, and a steering committee member of Rescuing Biomedical Research.
How can the academic system become more climate sustainable? This is the main question we posed at this year’s Berlin Science Week in a joint event with the Swiss Embassy in Berlin and Die Junge Akademie on 2 November 2022.
The European Fund for Displaced Scientists Programme (EFDS) was set up to provide financial support for Ukrainian scientists and institutions that have been affected by the war. A total of up to 100 Ukrainian scientists will benefit from the programme.
Last March, ALLEA, the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, announced the launch of the European Fund for Displaced Scientists Programme (EFDS) to assist the Ukrainian scientific community as a response to the ongoing Russian invasion. The programme was set up in partnership with the Breakthrough Prize Foundation who donated USD1.5 million for the launch of the programme.
The EFDS Programme consists of two separate funding lines: Funding Line 1 provides funds to academic institutions within the Council of Europe region that are able to host displaced scholars from Ukraine; Funding Line 2 provides funds to Ukrainian academic institutions for the continuation and/or reinstatement of their scientific operations and research collaborations, as well as to support initiatives that facilitate the reintegration of researchers upon their return to Ukraine. A total of up to 100 Ukrainian scientists will benefit from the EFDS Programme through the combined funding of both lines.
ALLEA President Antonio Loprieno stated that “the remarkably large number of applications received by ALLEA under both funding lines is a clear indication of the need that exists for the EFDS Programme and similar schemes to assist Ukraine’s research community, particularly for institutions within Ukraine to support the country’s effort to maintain its scientific operations and avoid an irreversible loss of talents and skills.”
Under Funding Line 1, financial support was provided to set up new or maintain existing positions for displaced researchers from Ukraine during the war. Institutions were eligible to apply for up to €25,000 for a period of 12 months. ALLEA received a total of 244 applications from 23 countries under this Funding Line, of which 35 beneficiaries were finally selected due to funding limitations. The grants will be distributed to academic institutions from eleven different countries, including Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden.
The application process took into account the measures planned by the host institutions to avoid brain drain and support the beneficiaries to return and reintegrate into the Ukrainian academic system upon completion of the hosting arrangement. Particular attention was given to scholars from areas that had been most affected by the war or that were under ongoing fire. Priority was also given to scholars who are affiliated with institutions that had to relocate as a result of the war or institutions with heavily damaged research infrastructure, which would make it impossible for them to continue their research work in Ukraine.
Under Funding Line 2, Ukrainian institutions were eligible to apply for up to €75,000 for a period of 12 months. ALLEA received a total of 105 applications from 89 institutions within Ukraine. Of these, 6 applications were selected, which will directly support a total of 64 Ukrainian scientists from both the university and the academy sector to continue their work in Ukraine. Funds will mainly be used to cover the costs of institutional staff and to purchase critical research equipment and materials.
The evaluation and selection process for both funding lines was carried out by an independent selection committee composed by senior officials from international and pan-European scientific institutions representing universities, funding organisations and researchers, including the European Research Council, the European University Association, the Global Young Academy, and Science Europe.
More information about the EFDS programme can be found here.
__
About ALLEA
ALLEA is the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, representing more than 50 academies from about 40 countries in Europe. Since its foundation in 1994, ALLEA speaks out on behalf of its members on the European and international stages, promotes science as a global public good, and facilitates scientific collaboration across borders and disciplines.
https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/MicrosoftTeams-image.png12003600Dino Tramontanihttps://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/allea-30-logo-300x90.pngDino Tramontani2022-11-01 08:14:372023-09-13 10:21:58ALLEA Announces First Results of Support Programme for Ukrainian Science
Academic and research institutions play a key role in providing evidence on the climate crisis as well as potential mitigation strategies. But, what are they doing to become more sustainable themselves? ALLEA’s latest report Towards Climate Sustainability of the Academic System in Europe and beyond suggests that much more can, and should, be done to make the academic system climate-conscious and sustainable. A change in culture is required where all stakeholders within the academic system become aware of their climate impact and act to reduce it.
One focal point for such a culture shift within academia is the lab. Laboratories are integral spaces for research, innovation and technological progress. But they are also resource and energy intensive. One estimate found that labs account for about 2% of global public waste and use as much as 3 to 10 times more energy per square metre compared with a typical office.
Martin Farley is Europe’s first full-time sustainable laboratory specialist.
What can labs do to reduce their climate impact? That is the very question Martin Farley has been working on in the last years. As the creator and manager of the Laboratory Efficiency Assessment Framework (LEAF) at the University College London (UCL), he has been doing this by creating and disseminating a green lab standard, and providing toolkits and resources to help scientific institutions improve the sustainability and efficiency of their laboratories. In this interview, we talk to Mr Farley, Europe’s first full-time sustainable laboratory specialist, to understand the challenges and opportunities in the quest to reduce the climate impact of labs.
“Sustainability as a topic of research and discussion will only grow, so I thought, ‘why not consider it in laboratories also?’”
Question: What motivated you to push for the sustainable transformation of scientific labs? Why did you focus on this particular niche?
Martin Farley: I worked and studied in labs in the US and Netherlands. During my time in these labs, I couldn’t help but notice the volume of plastic that I was using, particularly for tissue culturing (a research technique that involves growing animal or plant cells/tissues on an artificial medium outside the parent organism), and I wondered if anyone was doing anything about the sustainability of science. Sustainability as a topic of research and discussion will only grow, so I thought, “why not consider it in laboratories also?” It turns out that science facilities, while niche, are quite resource intensive with many opportunities for sustainability wins.
Q: Tell us a little bit about how you developed, and currently manage, UCL’s LEAF Programme. Was this an initiative that came from you? What barriers were the most challenging to overcome in the process of setting up the programme?
MF: While I initiated the programme, the support from UCL has been crucial to LEAF’s creation, particularly support from Joanna Marshall-Cook, Aaron Kashab, Vindya Dassanayake, Richard Jackson, and Ciaran Jebb, to name a few. Beyond the expected challenges one encounters when developing a new initiative, such as time, creating a website, or building engagement, I’m not sure there have been many that are notable. Both the scientific and sustainability communities have been hugely supportive of this effort, and LEAF has grown thanks to that support. I should add that we still have more to develop, and we need to find the best ways to expand LEAF’s remit while maintaining impact.
“We could also include sustainability and efficiency requirements, as we do with health and safety requirements, in the building and refurbishment of science facilities.”
Q: In a Nature article, you mention that the LEAF framework was developed to set shared standards for sustainable laboratories. Can this framework be applied across disciplines and geographical boundaries (we noticed that most of the signatories are in the UK)?
MF: While the majority of institutions that have signed up are from the UK, LEAF is in use in 14 countries now, including two institutions in Australia. This framework certainly can be applied beyond the UK. We’re also developing some new versions of LEAF for more specialist environments, which should be ready in early 2023 for participating institutions. The work that we’ve done has shown that there’s a lot of people working in specialist environments seeking guidance on how to be more sustainable.
Q: You also advocate for more stringent, mandatory “sustainability requirements” analogous to those for occupational safety. What could that look like?
MF: There’s much scope for discussion on what this would look like, but I like the health and safety model – having common, accessible standards that operations may be assessed against. Such standards in the sustainability space should be supported by academic institutions, funders, and commercial operations. We could also include sustainability and efficiency requirements, as we do with health and safety requirements, in the building and refurbishment of science facilities.
“I think more sharing and standardisation of approaches might be positive in our transition to climate sustainability. Currently, institutions need to […] repeat the same learnings that others have likely already done.”
Q: What are some of the challenges you have encountered with institutions trying to replicate the LEAF standard?
MF: I think generally most sustainability initiatives are voluntary, and so are dependent on the availability and willingness of individuals. This is a challenge for all such initiatives: How does one transition from a singular effort of goodwill to a common practice? My hope is LEAF helps them make that transition more easily, but it’s only one part of the wider sustainability efforts.
Q: Beyond laboratories, what would you like to see more/less of in the academic system’s transition towards climate sustainability? What are the low-hanging fruits that we can immediately build on right now?
MF: I think more sharing and standardisation of approaches might be positive in our transition to climate sustainability. Currently, institutions need to each develop their own strategies, create their own job descriptions, and repeat the same learnings that others have likely already done. I know academic institutions in some ways are in competition, but when it comes to sustainability, we need to understand that we’re on the same side. Sharing of practices does take place, but more could facilitate a quicker acceptance of targets, standards, etc. Also, there could be more efforts made to understand scope 3 carbon emissions (indirect emissions across an organisation’s whole value chain, such as travel, lab equipment, materials and waste) because by only focusing on scope 1 (direct emissions such as from refrigerants, on-site electricity generation and gas consumption for heating) and scope 2 (indirect emissions from energy directly consumed) emissions, we might be shooting ourselves in the foot. Low-hanging fruit might be as simple as shutting down our buildings (lights, heating etc.) after office hours.
“I know academic institutions in some ways are in competition, but when it comes to sustainability, we need to understand that we’re on the same side.”
Q: What institutional or cultural practices within academia are the most difficult to change in the transition towards climate sustainability?
MF: I think our accounting systems potentially disincentivise sustainability solutions. The financial year is 12 months, but sustainability planning might rely on much longer time scales, and this mismatch could create challenges for institutions to incorporate climate-conscious solutions. But we can work around these challenges. The budget to build a facility, for example, might be different from the one that pays to operate it. Equally, the individuals who utilise resources (like energy or consumables) often aren’t those who are responsible for paying for them, which affects consumption – bridging this gap between the payers and users could have a positive impact on consumption. I think we need to consider financial models and incentives alongside standards if we want to achieve some long-term net-zero goals.
Q: Do you believe that the sustainable transformation within academia is happening fast enough?
MF: I’m certainly encouraged enough to keep trying!
Martin Farley is the founder and manager of the Laboratory Efficiency Assessment Framework Programme (LEAF) at the University College London (UCL), as well as the Director of Green Lab Associates, a consultancy which helps make laboratories more efficient and sustainable.
While he began his career as a biologist, Farley went on to become the UK’s (and Europe’s) first full-time sustainable laboratory specialist at the University of Edinburgh. Today, his pioneering strategies are used by research universities in Europe, Australia, China, Singapore, and Japan to identify, track, and meet sustainability goals in the lab. Farley has been recognised for his innovative work in the sustainability sphere with the EAUC’s Sustainability Professional Green Gown award, as well as an Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment fellowship.
https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/shutterstock_2042265395-scaled.jpg17072560maria ronaldhttps://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/allea-30-logo-300x90.pngmaria ronald2022-10-25 17:17:222022-10-26 11:28:37Fighting for Sustainable Science – One Lab at a Time
Outstanding young scientists and artists can apply for a 5-year membership to Die Junge Akademie (German Young Academy). Applications for the 2023 selection can be submitted exclusively online until 15 November 2022 via the application platform.
Die Junge Akademie always has 50 members. Every year, ten members leave and ten new members are accepted. The annual selection takes place alternately via the supporting academies of Die Junge Akademie (the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities and the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina) and via Die Junge Akademie itself. For selections via the supporting academies in the even years the candidates are suggested. Selection via Die Junge Akademie in the odd years takes place via direct applications.
Membership of Die Junge Akademie is intended for outstanding scientists and artists that can show evidence of a completed doctorate or an artistic work. This work must have been completed at least three, but no more than seven years before the end of the application deadline (15 November 2022) and can be demonstrated by the doctorate certificate or a comparable document. Parental, care and sick leave are all taken into account during the selection process.
At least one other outstanding scientific/artistic achievement is expected, or that the applicant achieved visibility with their own scientific or artistic profile. The members should represent their field with innovation, passion and the ability to hold interdisciplinary discussions. They should also have the time for active membership.
A two-stage selection process will take place following submission of the application documents. The selection interviews will likely take place on February 16-17, 2023 in Potsdam. They will be conducted in the German language.
The call for applications for the 2023 selection can be downloaded here (in German only).
Further information on the selection procedure and the application platform can be found at: www.zuwahl.diejungeakademie.de
https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/RESPONSE-BY-THE-SCIENTIFIC-1.png8572575Dino Tramontanihttps://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/allea-30-logo-300x90.pngDino Tramontani2022-10-18 13:20:202022-10-19 16:13:35Application for Membership to the German Young Academy is Open
