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

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 23 (3):497-504 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Data-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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,213

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Aspects of Theory-Ladenness in Data-Intensive Science.Wolfgang Pietsch - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):905-916.
The Causal Nature of Modeling with Big Data.Wolfgang Pietsch - 2016 - Philosophy and Technology 29 (2):137-171.
What Is Epistemic Public Trust in Science?Gürol Irzik & Faik Kurtulmus - 2019 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70 (4):1145-1166.
Big Data and Prediction: Four Case Studies.Robert Northcott - 2020 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 81:96-104.
Openness in the Social Sciences: Sharing Data.Joan E. Sieber - 1991 - Ethics and Behavior 1 (2):69 – 86.
Genomic Research Data: Open Vs. Restricted Access.David B. Resnik - 2010 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 32 (1):1.
Classificatory Theory in Data-Intensive Science: The Case of Open Biomedical Ontologies.Sabina Leonelli - 2012 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 26 (1):47 - 65.
Trust as Basic Openness and Self-Transcendence.Claudia Welz - 2010 - In Arne Grøn & Claudia Welz (eds.), Trust, Sociality, Selfhood. Mohr Siebeck.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-06-11

Downloads
9 (#928,646)

6 months
1 (#414,449)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Knowledge Repositories. In Digital Knowledge We Trust.Tsjalling Swierstra & Sophia Efstathiou - 2020 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 23 (4):543-547.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics.Onora O'Neill - 2002 - Cambridge University Press.
The Role of Trust in Knowledge.John Hardwig - 1991 - Journal of Philosophy 88 (12):693-708.
Re-Thinking Organisms: The Impact of Databases on Model Organism Biology.Sabina Leonelli & Rachel A. Ankeny - 2012 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43 (1):29-36.

View all 14 references / Add more references