Rachel Brazil writes in NESTA Connect about a presentation on open research by Cameron Neylon, a researcher at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and University of Southampton:

Cameron is an enthusiast for open science – anything from open access publication to blogging about lab results as soon as you have them. Through open access to data and the collaboration that this allows, Cameron believes that we will make more progress and ultimately innovate quicker.

Many of the researchers in the audience were fearful of sharing data and working in such an open manner. Cameron recounted the experience in an article in Science in the Open:

Not surprisingly there was significant pushback – much of it where you would expect. Concerns over data theft, over how “non-traditional” contributions might appear (or not) on a CV, and over the costs in time were all mentioned. However what surprised me most was the pushback against the idea of putting material on the open web versus traditional journal formats. There was a real sense that the group had a respect for the authority of the printed, versus online, word which really caught me out.

Cameron commented on Rachel’s article with this thoughts on why these early-career researchers were so skeptical:

My gut feeling is that most of the open people are either postdocs, who therefore are limited as to what they can actually do but are very effective cheer-leaders, and mid-career researchers. People at the top of their field are usually comfortable with the systems they have in place and aren’t interested in changing practices. Early career independent researchers get a lot of pressure to conform (while demonstrating their individuality!) and are often too scared of anything that might be perceived as “sketchy” to pursue it – generally with good reason. At this career stage it is all about how you are perceived. Too much of a maverick and you can get into trouble.

Rachel’s article also brings up an infrastructural issue with openness that stems from the way research is funded:

Another reply has suggested that the perceived risk is connected to the way research is funded. The system has arisen whereby we effectively fund work that has alrady been done as grants will only be awarded for work that is so clear cut and proven that it has no risk associated with it. It is only in this environment that researchers can not risk sharing data or results in an open way.

An infrastructure that is biased against sharing information and working openly, combined with pressure to conform (especially when that pressure comes from people in a position of direct authority and influence), can work together to stifle transparency, sharing, and collaboration. One of the great advantages of working in the open is that it can foster greater objectivity and enable the best work to filter up. That could directly impact and improve the decision-making process on which research gets funded.