Although there have been many recent calls for increased data sharing, the majority of environmental scientists do not make their individual data sets publicly available in online repositories. Current data-sharing conversations are focused on overcoming the technological challenges associated with data sharing and the lack of rewards and incentives for individuals to share data. We argue that the most important conversation has yet to take place: There has not been a strong ethical impetus for sharing data within the current culture, behaviors, and practices of environmental scientists. In this article, we describe a critical shift that is happening in both society and the environmental science community that makes data sharing not just good but ethically obligatory. This is a shift toward the ethical value of promoting inclusivity within and beyond science. An essential element of a truly inclusionary and democratic approach to science is to share data through publicly accessible data sets.

Scientists have been debating for centuries the nature of proper scientific methods. Currently, criticisms being thrown at data-intensive science are reinvigorating these debates. However, many of these criticisms represent long-standing conflicts over the role of hypothesis testing in science and not just a dispute about the amount of data used. Here, we show that an iterative account of scientific methods developed by historians and philosophers of science can help make sense of data-intensive scientific practices and suggest more effective ways to evaluate this research. We use case studies of Darwin's research on evolution by natural selection and modern-day research on macrosystems ecology to illustrate this account of scientific methods and the innovative approaches to scientific evaluation that it encourages. We point out recent changes in the spheres of science funding, publishing, and education that reflect this richer account of scientific practice, and we propose additional reforms.

Overinclusive authorship practices such as honorary or guest authorship have been widely reported, and they appear to be exacerbated by the rise of large interdisciplinary collaborations that make authorship decisions particularly complex. Although many studies have reported on the frequency of honorary authorship and potential solutions to it, few have probed how the underlying dynamics of large interdisciplinary teams contribute to the problem. This article reports on a qualitative study of the authorship standards and practices of six National Science Foundation-funded interdisciplinary environmental science teams. Using interviews of the lead principal investigator and an early-career member on each team, our study explores the nature of honorary authorship practices as well as some of the motivating factors that may contribute to these practices. These factors include both structural elements (policies and procedures) and cultural elements (values and norms) that cross organizational boundaries. Therefore, we provide recommendations that address the intersection of these factors and that can be applied at multiple organizational levels.

Background STEM identity has been shown to have a powerful role in an individual’s success in educational environments, as well as on their career goals and trajectories. Historically, however, STEM identity formation for underrepresented students has been hampered by the lack of representation of in STEM fields, which predominantly consist of white males. One educational challenge is diversifying STEM classrooms, both in terms of the students themselves and also in terms of the science and scientists they learn about. Methods We piloted a 4-credit History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Science course at Michigan State University. Students were tasked with creating exhibits focused on themes of diversity and inclusion in science for a real client. Using a STEM identity survey, we assessed students’ attitudes towards the sciences, issues of diversity in science, and their sense of belonging to their educational communities. We also had the students respond to various short-answer questions throughout the semester to better understand their experiences working on a collaborative authentic learning task. Results Our results suggest that authentic learning experiences based around ideas of diversity and inclusion can help students develop sense of belonging and positive STEM identities. Students demonstrated shifts in their self-identities as scientists, focusing more on the intersection between their gender, ethnicity, and self-perception as a scientist. Through qualitative analysis of short-answer questions, we were able to ascertain that working in groups in an authentic learning environment helped the students improve their communication and collaboration skills. Conclusions Students’ increased focus on gender and ethnicity suggests that they are thinking critically about how their personal identities intersect with their scientific identities. Additional research would help us better understand if the coupling of authentic learning and inclusive teaching practices have significant impacts on the formation of students’ STEM identities.

Scientific research—especially high-impact research—is increasingly being performed in teams that are interdisciplinary and demographically diverse. Nevertheless, very little research has investigated how the climate on these diverse science teams affects data sharing or the experiences of their members. To address these gaps, we conducted a quantitative study of 266 scientists from 105 NSF-funded interdisciplinary environmental science teams. We examined how team climate mediates the associations between team diversity and three outcomes: satisfaction with the team, satisfaction with authorship practices, and perceptions of the frequency of data sharing. Using path analyses, we found that individuals from underrepresented groups perceived team climate more negatively, which was associated with lower satisfaction with the team and more negative perceptions of authorship practices and data sharing on the team. However, individuals on teams with more demographic diversity reported a more positive climate than those on teams with less demographic diversity. These results highlight the importance of team climate, the value of diverse teams for team climate, and barriers to the full inclusion and support of individuals from underrepresented groups in interdisciplinary science teams.