In the past few months, scientists across the globe who rely on publicly available US datasets and interactive tools for their research have encountered the unsettling message: Oops! This page cannot be found. The inaccessibility of datasets accompanies proposed budget cuts at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Meanwhile, initiatives tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion are being dismantled, vital datasets, especially health-related information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are being changed or erased, and the collection of crucial healthcare data is being deprioritized.
Simply put, the US research enterprise is headed for irrevocable damage. Policies that undermine scientific infrastructure and talent represent a grave threat to US leadership in global science, innovation, and importantly, people’s trust in scientific research. These actions will also drive researchers to seek opportunities abroad, further diminishing the nation’s standing in the global scientific community. Indeed, the European Commission has recently launched the ‘Choose Europe for Science Program’ for 2025–2027, with more than $500 million in funding to attract scientists, primarily from the US, who are impacted by federal funding cuts.
In this critical moment for US science, the only viable defenses against these attacks on science are transparency and rigorous accountability. The global scientific community has been moving toward a more inclusive, democratic, and open approach. European initiatives like Plan S have revolutionized research by mandating open access to publicly funded studies, fostering greater equity and visibility for scientific work. Open Research Europe is expanding, providing a continent-wide platform for freely accessible research. Japan’s ¥10 billion initiative similarly aims to make publicly funded research freely available. India’s One Nation One Subscription agreement furthers this global shift by giving approximately 18 million researchers and students free access to around 13,000 journals. Additionally, DeepSeek, China’s large language model, allows for open sharing and reuse of its algorithms unlike US-based ChatGPT, democratizing scientific innovation. In contrast, democratization of scientific research in the US, following the 2022 Nelson Memo, faces an uncertain future.
The open science community has a unique and vital role to play in countering these efforts. Open science promotes transparency, integrity, rigor, accessibility, equity, and accountability—asserting that all knowledge, such as research findings, datasets, codes, and all metadata should be freely accessible. This inclusive and transparent approach is the strongest or perhaps the only antidote to the anti-science ideologies and building public trust in scientific research.
Open science extends beyond providing access to published research and data—it is about fostering open knowledge institutions, such as universities and research organizations, that actively engage society in the process of knowledge creation and dissemination. Moreover, open science can push forward innovation and collaboration across various sectors—academia, industry/businesses, governmental and non-profit organizations, and media—especially, in the context of anti-science political regimes, thus, reshaping the nature of knowledge production.1
As scientists and members of the open science community, we must stand together in safeguarding scientific integrity and promoting accessible, transparent research. Now more than ever, we should prioritize publishing our research to preprint servers, which do not restrict knowledge behind a paywall. Researchers should ensure when sharing research findings that all data, detailed protocols, and codes are shared in accordance with the FAIR principles and are done so as early as possible.2 We should also review our peers' research openly by publicly commenting on preprints and published articles, incorporating feedback, and thus, engaging in a constructive discourse.
To improve trust in research, institutions and journals can support publishing and reviewing preprints, ensuring that knowledge remains transparent, freely available, and in researchers’ hands. This could be incorporated into departmental or lab journal clubs. Institutions could recognize preprints and publicly-reviewed preprints in hiring, funding, and tenure decisions, actively rewarding transparency and behaviors that establish trust in research. Researchers and journals must hold both science and themselves accountable by timely issuing corrections in the published research.
While science is a political endeavor, it is our responsibility to ensure that knowledge remains independent of political agendas—only we, the scientists, have the power to uphold this principle.
Disclaimer: Dr. Jonny Coates is a researcher at the Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education (IDGORE). Dr. Mayank Chugh is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the College of William & Mary. Both share their individual views.
- Smart P, et al. Open Science and Open Innovation in a socio-political context: knowledge production for societal impact in an age of post-truth populism. R D Manag. 2019;49(3):279-297.
- Wilkinson MD, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016;3(1):160018.
