Towards more sustainable research

The training of scientists mainly involves mentoring. Mentoring requires an ability to listen, empathy, open-mindedness and tolerance. To fulfill this task in the best possible way, we need to continually seek to improve our practices by regularly questioning them and/or taking part in training courses.

The website Mentoring. It’s in our genes offers a series of recommendations for improving mentoring practices :

• Cultivating an inclusive environment where everyone can feel valued.
• Making career development a priority.
• Communicating, clarifying expectations and promoting transparency.
• Promoting well-being.
• Improvement by way of regular updating and self-assessment.

The paper Mentoring is more important than ever, Heemstra et Garg, 2022 presents the project #MentorFirst and underlines its importance in the post-COVID19 period.

The website Putting mentoring first proposes concrete actions to improve the mentoring of scientists, and makes use of the #MentorFirst X program to track relevant news.

The paper Nine pitfalls of research misconduct, Gunsalus et Robinson, 2018 recalls, under the acronym TRAGEDIES (Temptation, Rationalization, Ambition, Group and authority pressure, Entitlement, Deception, Incrementalism, Embarrassment and Stupid systems), a number of the pitfalls we can fall into.

Finally, PhD students’ points of view are crucial. They are presented in Le Guide du doctorat.

Research is a collective effort, based on complementary competencies. The feeling of being part of a close-knit group, supporting each others’ efforts and sharing the values of scientific integrity and ethics, fosters responsible research.

The authors of Health tips for research groups, Norris et al., 2018 et Ten simple rules towards healthier research labs, Maestre, 2019, provide suggestions on how to make science more productive, more reliable and more enjoyable.

Among other things, they recommend that research teams create a collaborative environment, keeping in mind that every team member is unique. They also recommend respect for working hours, and vacations, avoiding stigmatizing failure, celebrating successes and promoting the professional development of members of the team.

Rethinking one’s CV entails making more specific what it means to be involved in more responsible activities, reconsidering your activities in terms of values, and looking ahead to what you might do in the future. It also means looking at your research practices to explain how they have contributed to the production of knowledge and have benefited your team, the research community, and society in general.

This can be done by writing a narrative CV. The CV model proposed by UK Research and Innovation can be used as a template.

This is recommended for all those involved in research activities, regardless of their function or status.

Several research institutions, including Inserm, have committed themselves to a series of actions in favour of more responsible research activities, notably by signing the Declaration on research assessment (DORA), and more recently the declaration of the Coalition for advancing research assessment (CoARA), which describe the following commitments asked of institutions :

1. Recognizing the diversity of contributions and careers in research,
2. Basing research assessment primarily on qualitative evaluations, for which peer review is central,
3. Revise research evaluation, in particular avoid inappropriate uses of the journal impact factor (JIF) and the h-index,
4. Avoiding the use of research organization rankings in the evaluation of research,
5. Providing the necessary resources to carry out research evaluation reforms,
6. Reviewing and developing research evaluation criteria, tools and processes :
   – for laboratories and organizations: the active involvement of research organizations and researchers at all stages in their careers; reviewing and developing criteria for the evaluation of research laboratories and research organizations, while promoting interoperability ;
   – for research projects and personnel: the direct involvement of researchers at all stages in their careers; investigating and developing appropriate evaluation criteria, tools and processes,
7. Raising awareness towards research evaluation reform, providing information and training,
8. Exchanging practices and experiences,
9. Communicating on progress in adherence to the principles and implementation of commitments,
10. Basing decision-making on unbiased, evidence-based indicators. This implies building on “research on research” (for example, by making the institution’s data on the evaluation of researchers available).

Do not fail to make a personal commitment by signing DORA. Do not hesitate to mention this commitment in your CV.

A recent seminar on the changing assessment systems was organized by the European Commission as part of the “Research and Innovation days” entitledBuilding careers and being assessed: A challenge for young researchers?

Sharing science means primarily sharing reliable results among scientists. An open science approach ensures increased transparency and maximizes the value of scientific research data.

In 2022, the Open Science Committee published a summary entitled « Promoting open science » suggesting five avenues to promote open science practices.

Sharing science also means promoting the dissemination of research and its widespread appropriation.

In a 2020 podcast entitled ‘Working Scientist podcast: How to craft and communicate a simple science story’, we recommend avoiding jargon, using short sentences and keeping to the point. The author also shares tips for good science writing for books and magazines targeting the general public.

In Point of View: Telling it like it is ,published in 2014, Alison Woollard points out why scientists should communicate with the general public.

Participative science can take many forms. It involves a scientific project conducted in partnership between a research organization and volunteers. The Houllier report provides an overview of participatory science in France in 2016.

The article No PhDs needed: how citizen science is transforming research, Irwin, 2018, gives some practical examples of participatory science projects and outlines the limitations of the concept. As with any research process, it is important to ensure the quality of data collected : Public participation : Time for a definition of citizen science, Heigl et Dorler, 2017.

Everyone can think of ways to reduce his or her carbon footprint in research projects. This can involve a range of initiatives, such as giving preference to glassware over single-use plastic consumables whenever possible, switching off devices when they are not in use, taking a closer look at modes of transport, deploying a zero-deforestation purchasing policy, or other measures to limit the environmental impact of office activities.

To find out about your carbon footprint and measure the progress you have made in minimizing it, you can use the tools developed by the Labos 1.5 consortium, and then take action to reduce it.

Ma Terre en 180 minutes (My Earth in 180 minutes) is a collaborative workshop run by research teams and designed to devise scenarios for reducing the carbon footprint.

The Fresque du Climat is a key tool to help people take on the challenge of global warming.