To See the Future of Science We Need to Look Beyond the '2.0 Paradigm' | Dirk Jan van den Berg

"The vernacular of 'Science 2.0' has become increasingly utilised in the debate about the future of science. Many media articles and conferences focus on this topic, and the European Commission has recently held a public consultation to better understand the impact of 2.0 and desirability of policy action to enable it. While the attention that this debate has brought to science is welcome, to truly illuminate the future of the discipline we need to look beyond the 2.0 paradigm. A central problem with the debate over 2.0 is that there is no universally agreed definition of what it actually is. For the purposes of this article, I will employ the description used by the European Commission. That is, it represents the "ongoing evolution in the modus operandi of doing research and organising science". This can be broken down, according to the Commission into discrete strands. These include the evolution of science and research systems from a largely 'bottom-up' process to a globally networked digitised process increasingly focused upon the 'grand challenges' of our times. As elaborate as this definition is, it fails to capture the totality of the transformation that is taking place in science today. To fully appreciate this, a comprehensive systems approach is necessary. Looking through at the debate from this vantage point, there are at least three key building blocks that will determine the future of science. These are fundamental conditions for success; 'game changers' that are or could prove transformative trends; and finally responses to these conditions and trends. This architecture for the future of science incorporates, but goes well beyond, the 2.0 paradigm. Moreover, it also reveals that while many people are currently focusing on 2.0 as a completely new development, it actually has been evolving for years. The systems analysis starts with four fundamental conditions that need to successfully addressed for a healthy science system. These are: strong science funding; excellent infrastructure, facilities, and campuses; robust career propositions; and finally, autonomy of academic institutions ..."