From October 26 to 28, the early career scientists (ECS) and senior scientists of (not only) RISE, explored four cross-disciplinary topics: open science, ethical implications, dynamic risk, and transdisciplinarity. To address the objectives of RISE, the workshop focused on “Bringing research to practical applications that increase society’s earthquake resilience”.
The ECS learned that the four topics are strongly connected and affect all of them. For example, dynamic risk services/products like operational earthquake forecasting (OEF) or rapid impact assessments (RIA) are only possible if the underlying data are openly available and continuously updated. In this regard, standardization is key to ensure that the same data can be used for various (dynamic risk) services/products simultaneously (e.g., rapid earthquake information for OEF and RIA), making them more sustainable.
It became very evident that transdisciplinary research is needed to facilitate the collaboration between the disciplines that are involved in developing the services/products and to tailor those to the end-users’ needs. But the wide spectrum of stakeholders within the scientific community and the society challenges transdisciplinary research. Moreover, different situations, e.g., during the evolution of a seismic crisis, require different collaboration formats between scientists from various disciplines and different tools to involve societal stakeholders. Despite these difficulties, transdisciplinary efforts are the only way to create effective products/services for our end-users and, consequently, increase society’s resilience.
The ethics group of the workshop developed a decision tree to deduce possible actions for various problems that have ethical implications. If the ethical correctness is consensual, then the solutions are explicit, such as enforcing open science to avoid biases in publishing and handling data/results. But ethically subjective actions first require defining a consensus, for instance by letting experts vote or consider arguments. However, finding a consensus is not trivial: is 70% agreement on releasing OEF information to the public enough to actually do it? The workshop further allowed to establish and strengthen the connections between us, especially among ECSs. The workshop ended with a statement made by one senior: “You [ECS] are the next generation of scientists and, thus, can change the future.”