Details below. This statement has 3 things the ‘government must’ do, and text supporting these items. There isn’t any mention of open science and the role that it plays in all of the 3 named items. I think we could brainstorm a statement and have all of us submit it individually?
AGU’s position statement on government funding of science was recently updated by an expert task force to reflect the community’s stance on this key issue, as part of the recurring four-year process. The task force relies on comments by members to finalize the draft statement, which is then approved by AGU’s Board and Council. The comment period runs 1-30 June 2021.
I strongly support this idea @cgentemann! While there is mention of “openly disseminating…datasets”, I agree that specific wording about supporting open science should absolutely be included.
Agree! Since open science is more than just open data, it also requires infrastructure, training, and other related resources that all need support from the government (together with other sources like foundations)!
I think we should put into a gdoc & edit to weave open science through it then submit it with as many names as possible attached.
I agree with and would be happy to contribute to these edits (great idea, @cgentemann). @douglasrao, as you’ve noted, the community management component of open science is a huge, often undervalued/undersupported piece of this work.
@cgentemann @paigem @JessicaS11 I have put together a google doc for comments.
Thanks @douglasrao! I went ahead and added some text/edits (in suggestion mode) to get us started, and would be happy to have a more in-depth conversation about any of this.
@douglasrao thanks so much, I added some suggestions. I am unable to attend the Pangeo wednesday meetings right now because of a conflict, but do you think maybe we could call for scientists to sign this edited version?
This revised statement proposal looks great! I only made two minor comments, but I really like how it reads. @cgentemann @douglasrao @JessicaS11 was this brought up at the Pangeo meeting today? It looks like AGU is asking for feedback simply as a website form, so I’m not sure we can easily add signatures to it. Perhaps we want to email AGU directly with our revision, and can include a list of names supporting this version?
Happy to help with this in any way - we will need to submit this revised version by next Wednesday.
@paigem I’m also unclear what the best way to submit something like this is. Would it be worth a quick email to AGU to see if they’d accept feedback that way (a revised version with a list of supporters) rather than have a bunch of people submit the same comments through the online form?
@JessicaS11 That is a good idea to contact AGU and ask, and I have sent out an email to an AGU staff cc’ing all of you here (@cgentemann @douglasrao). Since I am in the Australian timezone, I will likely be sleeping when the response comes through, hence why I cc’ed all of you.
The other thing here is whether we can actually get a good number of signatures before June 30th (Wednesday). We have at least the 4 of us in this thread, but perhaps we could promote in our circles to get a few more?
For anyone following this thread, here’s the awesome post @cgentemann put together:
Help! Deadline tomorrow! 6/30!
Please help advance open science by signing our comments to AGU here.
We plan to submit a list of people rather than having everyone submit individually. If you want to submit your individual comments, you can use the AGU link below. Please forward to your network.
Chelle Gentemann, Paige Martin, Yuhan Douglas Rao, Jessica Scheick, Ryan Abernathey
More background: AGU’s position statement on government funding of science was recently updated by an expert task force to reflect the community’s stance on this key issue, as part of the recurring four-year process. The task force relies on comments by members to finalize the draft statement, which is then approved by AGU’s Board and Council. The comment period runs 1-30 June 2021.
AGU draft statement: here
Statement with our edits in bold: here