Open Science Protocol

The author argues for a nuanced approach to scientific openness, proposing an 'Open Science Protocol' that allows a small fraction of projects to be conducted with total transparency. This protocol would make all stages—from funding applications to peer review—open to public scrutiny, contrasting with 'Secret', 'Restricted', and 'Circumspect' science. The author suggests that information technology enables this level of openness and argues that such transparency prevents the 'fenced' nature of institutional science from shielding flawed claims from external criticism.

• The author identifies four distinct levels of openness in scientific practice: 'Secret Science' (existence is concealed), 'Restricted Science' (limited publication timing and detail), 'Circumspect Science' (publication only upon completion), and 'Open Science' (projects following the Open Science Protocol).
• The proposed Open Science Protocol requires the real-time openness of several project stages, including ethics and safety committee passages, funding applications and reviews, the funding body's and institution's terms, project logs, submitted manuscripts, and referee comments.
• The document argues that 'fenced science'—where information flows freely among a peer group but is restricted for outsiders—means that truth claims exported to the wider world lack a basis for examination and rely on prestige or power rather than evidence.
• Traditional peer review is criticized for being too discreet and anonymous, which can lead to conclusions that favor the peer group over the public interest; the author suggests involving experts from contiguous specialties and public interest guardians.
• The author uses the 1996 UK Forensic Explosives Laboratory case to illustrate how a lack of open evidence (specifically a contaminated centrifuge) prevented informed external criticism in criminal trials.
• The Bristol University Vet School controversy from 1988 is cited to argue that openness during the funding application stage is essential to prevent research from being 'bent' toward specific interests (such as biological warfare) to secure grants.
• Information technology is presented as the enabling factor for the Open Science Protocol, suggesting a decentralized model similar to the World Wide Web where standards are consensus-based and records are archived for 30 years.

APA

Cottey, A. (2001). Open Science Protocol. Scientists for Global Responsibility. https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/open-science

Chicago

Cottey, Alan. Open Science Protocol. Scientists for Global Responsibility, 2001. https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/open-science.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Cottey |first1=Alan |title=Open Science Protocol |publisher=Scientists for Global Responsibility |date=2001 |url=https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/open-science |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{cottey2001open, author = {Cottey, Alan}, title = {{Open Science Protocol}}, institution = {Scientists for Global Responsibility}, year = {2001}, url = {https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/open-science}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }