Openness and trust in data-intensive science: the case of biocuration

Author:

Gabrielsen Ane MøllerORCID

Abstract

AbstractData-intensive science comes with increased risks concerning quality and reliability of data, and while trust in science has traditionally been framed as a matter of scientists being expected to adhere to certain technical and moral norms for behaviour, emerging discourses of open science present openness and transparency as substitutes for established trust mechanisms. By ensuring access to all available information, quality becomes a matter of informed judgement by the users, and trust no longer seems necessary. This strategy does not, however, take into consideration the networks of professionals already enabling data-intensive science by providing high-quality data. In the life sciences, biological data- and knowledge bases managed by expert biocurators have become crucial for data-intensive research. In this paper, I will use the case of biocurators to argue that openness and transparency will not diminish the need for trust in data-intensive science. On the contrary, data-intensive science requires a reconfiguration of existing trust mechanisms in order to include those who take care of and manage scientific data after its production.

Funder

Norges Forskningsråd

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Health Policy,Education,Health (social science)

Reference50 articles.

1. Ankeny, Rachel A., and Sabina Leonelli. 2015. Valuing data in postgenomic biology: How data donation and curation practices challenge the scientific publication system. In Postgenomics: Perspectives on biology after the genome, ed. Sarah S. Richardson and Hallam Stevens, 126–149. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

2. Attwood, Teresa K., Douglas B. Kell, Philip McDermott, James Marsh, Steve R. Pettifer, and David Thorne. 2009. Calling international rescue: Knowledge lost in literature and data landslide! Biochemical Journal 424 (3): 317–333.

3. Barber, Bernard. 1987. Trust in science. Minerva 25 (1–2): 123–134.

4. Bateman, Alex. 2010. Curators of the world unite: The International Society of Biocuration. Bioinformatics 26 (8): 991. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq101.

5. Baxevanis, Andreas D., and Alex Bateman. 2015. The importance of biological databases in biological discovery. Current Protocols in Bioinformatics 50 (1): 1–8.

Cited by 10 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3