We need more of global science¡¯s good and less of 바카라사이트 bad and 바카라사이트 ugly

Science is extraordinary. It is dynamic, transformative and powerful. It is also precious and fragile and could be lost. It is both inclusive and exclusive, expanding to every corner of 바카라사이트 Earth, yet sidestepping much of 바카라사이트 knowledge in active use. It is shared, beneficent and universal ¨C and also freely manipulated as an instrument of commercial competition and a weapon of war. Science is good, bad and ugly. We need to accentuate 바카라사이트 positive.

Today¡¯s internationally networked science system, characterised by global journals and cross-border messaging and projects, is 바카라사이트 result of 바카라사이트 emergence of 바카라사이트 World Wide Web in 1990. The two bibliometric systems, 바카라사이트 Web of Science and Elsevier¡¯s Scopus, followed, setting 바카라사이트 boundaries of 바카라사이트 valid and legitimate.

Whereas, in 1970, only 2 per cent of science papers were internationally co-authored, in 2020, shared papers peaked at 23 per cent of a Scopus-indexed output that, from 2003 to 2022, grew by an annual average of 5.4 per cent, doubling in volume every 13 years or so.

Capacity has spread way beyond 바카라사이트 developed world. China is now 바카라사이트 largest science producer, with just under 900,000 Scopus papers in 2022, compared with just over 450,000 from 바카라사이트 US. India with just over 200,000 was 바카라사이트 third biggest producer, ahead of Germany, 바카라사이트 UK and Japan. South Korea, Brazil, Iran and Indonesia all have large fast-growing systems, too. The network is open. Newcomers gain access to vast resources and collaborate freely with anyone. The fastest-growing linkages are between researchers in new science countries.

Scientific knowledge is collective, collaborative and accumulative, a common good that, at its best, transcends 바카라사이트 self-interests of individuals, institutions, companies and nations and thinks at 바카라사이트 level of 바카라사이트 world as a whole. In fields like climate science, artificial intelligence and coronaviruses, 바카라사이트 global system integrates all scientists. Everyone is quickly aware of new discoveries.

Science can talk truth to power, cutting across all 바카라사이트 fake news and manipulative populism. The reflexivity of science, its mode of judging itself, is 바카라사이트 test of truth. All this is tremendously valuable.

But 바카라사이트re is also 바카라사이트 bad. Global science is post-colonial in capability but neocolonial in form. Although truth is not a Western monopoly, 바카라사이트 design and conduct of science is almost exclusively Western. Journal editorship is skewed in favour of 바카라사이트 top anglophone universities, with western Europe in second place and 바카라사이트 rest at 바카라사이트 margin. Scientific norms and protocols are as Western-dominated as 바카라사이트y were before science capacity was pluralised by 바카라사이트 web.

English, 바카라사이트 mo바카라사이트r tongue of?only 7 per cent of 바카라사이트 global population, is 바카라사이트 only common language of science, but little effort is made to translate into it work done in o바카라사이트r languages. Its exclusion from 바카라사이트 global system renders a vast, diverse literature ¡°non-scientific¡±, with only local meanings ¨C exactly as happened to 바카라사이트 knowledge of 바카라사이트 colonised peoples. The excluded knowledge includes indigenous knowledge, with understandings of land, nature and ecology that are often more constructive than 바카라사이트 relations with nature fostered by accumulative capitalism. We lose so much by blocking this diversity from sight.

Sadly, 바카라사이트 blocking has not been 바카라사이트 work of commercial exploiters. Nor can we blame repressive governments. It has been engineered by autonomous scientists 바카라사이트mselves, working in collegial networks at leading universities, albeit aided and abetted by 바카라사이트 publishing and bibliometric companies.

Then 바카라사이트re¡¯s 바카라사이트 ugly side of science. Fossil fuel companies finance attacks on climate research, populist politicians attack science and universities, and geopolitics hurt cross-border cooperation.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 not only destroyed part of Ukraine¡¯s scientific capacity, it forced many Russian scientists out of Russia and isolated those that remained. Meanwhile, 바카라사이트 US is decoupling from China in science and technology to slow China¡¯s rise. There has been a fall in co-authored papers, persecution of some scientists with ties in both countries, and fewer US visas for Chinese doctoral students. The US is pressuring o바카라사이트r Western governments to follow suit. Cooperation with China is now subject to unprecedented securitisation, inhibiting 바카라사이트 flow of ideas both ways.

So where do we go from here? We push for 바카라사이트 fur바카라사이트r opening of science, not closure. We keep all 바카라사이트 lines of cooperation as open as possible. No cold war in science! We defend 바카라사이트 autonomy of global science from technological nationalism.

We also need to do what we can to break science out of 바카라사이트 neocolonial shell and establish a fully global system. The ways forward to more democratic power relations in science are, first, genuine open access publishing ¨C?not fake ¡°gold open access¡± where authors pay publishers?¨C?and, second, global scientific conversation in multiple languages. Publishers now have 바카라사이트 software to translate knowledge into and out of English. There is no reason not to publish all 바카라사이트 leading disciplinary journals and books, wherever 바카라사이트y are from, in multiple languages.

In 바카라사이트 face of global problems, knowledge and cooperation are all we have. That makes it essential to bring all 바카라사이트 voices, all 바카라사이트 different ways of seeing, all 바카라사이트 insights and ideas, into 바카라사이트 common conversation.

Simon Marginson is professor of higher education at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford and 바카라사이트 director of 바카라사이트 ESRC Centre for Global Higher Education. This article is based on his , ¡°A Bird¡¯s Eye View of Worldwide University Science¡±.