[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
No competing interests were disclosed.
Data-intensive research depends on data and data services, such as databases, software and tools, and standards. These are often made available to end-users through research infrastructure. Such a research infrastructure for biological data and bioinformatics service in Europe is
As is common for many types of infrastructure (especially those that are free at the point of use), the existence of research infrastructure, like the services provided by ELIXIR, is often taken for granted by their users. Their importance is only noticed when they are (temporarily) unavailable, or worse,
As research infrastructures and their services are typically funded through the public purse, it is essential that policy makers, research funders, experts reviewing funding proposals, and possibly even end-users are equipped with a good understanding of the daily tasks of service providers. We have noticed that this is not often the case, and this becomes an issue when this lack of understanding affects the funding of research infrastructures. To foster better understanding, this policy brief provides a comparison table of features of data infrastructure and their relatable counterparts in road infrastructure. We believe that using this approach can help, first because the change in mind frame makes it possible to see consequences of certain choices more clearly, especially those linked to funding of research infrastructures. Second, many people, even those working in research, are much more accustomed to road infrastructure setup and road infrastructure disruptions than to research infrastructure setup and research infrastructure disruptions; this increased familiarity increases the chances that consequences of policy decisions are foreseen.
For the actual feature comparison, see
| Data infrastructure | Road infrastructure |
|---|---|
| Data service | Road |
| User of a data service/Researcher | Car driver |
| Research project | Car |
| Cutting edge research project | Expensive car |
| Project | Trip, journey |
| The one who develops and operates a service, service provider | Road construction and maintenance company |
| Flexible data service | Road suitable for cargo and people |
| Hack something together yourself | Driving your own Jeep from Manchester to Cambridge, possibly off-road |
| Using a well-documented and well-maintained existing service | Driving the motorway from Manchester to Cambridge in a mid-class comfortable car |
| Services that the user pays for | Toll road |
| Centrally financed service that therefore is oversubscribed/abused (e.g. free repository where someone dumps 1TB of data) | Traffic Jam |
| Services that can be used by anyone, the user does not need to be part of the infrastructure that provides them | Public roads |
| Interoperable services | Road intersections, motorway interchanges |
| Non-interoperable services | Crossing roads without intersections |
| Efficiency of a well-thought-out service | Speed of a Ferrari on an asphalt road |
| Efficiency of letting everyone figure things out themselves | Speed of a Jeep on rough terrain |
| Thinking data infrastructure is too expensive (or lacking sufficient accommodation of one's specific needs) and preferring to build everything yourself to exact specifications; underestimating the value of services (e.g. 24/7 support) and underestimating the real cost of building everything yourself (excluding e.g. energy bills, and the fact that the postdoc employed for the task is not productive for work while making weekly backups) | Not being willing to pay road taxes or to pay another centralised tax system (or complaining that you have to walk the last bit from the parking lot), underestimating the value provided (to its users) by the road infrastructure and underestimating the cost incurred to get exactly from A->B without roads (i.e. using an all-terrain car), e.g. forgetting that there won't be any gas stations along the way either |
| What can be realistically achieved in a scientific project | How far you can travel in a day |
| ELIXIR's visibility (i.e. prominence) in biology | Public knowledge about the companies building and maintaining roads |
| ELIXIR's visibility in bioinformatics | Knowledge in the government about the companies building and maintaining roads |
| Not knowing whether the infrastructure will live long enough to serve your entire project (and its successor), and therefore being coerced into building it yourself | Not knowing whether the roads will be maintained for 10 years, and therefore better off buying a Jeep than either a Ferrari or a Volkswagen |
| Infrastructure investing in services based on community needs | Government prioritising road investments based on transport needs |
| Asking a research infrastructure provider what scientific breakthroughs the infrastructure will be making. An RI facilitates/enables breakthroughs (as well as enabling more routine research to be carried out) but does not make them itself nor predict what they will be | Asking a road construction/maintenance company how much faster the distance will be travelled. The road enables road users to travel at average and perhaps faster speeds, but the road construction/maintenance company cannot predict what cars they will use and what they will carry |
| Making the requirement that a funding proposal for "infrastructure" includes scientific breakthroughs to happen within a set timeline, instead of enabling routine and breakthrough research as long as the infrastructure is useful | Asking a road company to deploy a combination of a very fast asphalt depositing machine, a Ferrari, and a system to clean up the road immediately afterwards |
| Asking top scientists to review proposals for research infrastructure funding. The services that would be offered by the infrastructure would be "competing" with what they (and only similar top scientists) can get done in their own labs | To ask those who have expensive Jeeps whether they approve the construction of a public road. They and others with off-road cars do not see the need for roads, they can get along just fine without them |
The comparison between research data infrastructure and road infrastructure has many hooks to support productive discussions, and decisions, on research infrastructure funding and sustainability governance. Given that we, the co-authors, all work in research infrastructures, there is an inherent bias in the approach presented, just like when Sutherland
Furthermore, the comparison table is likely to support efforts of both research infrastructure operators and policymakers in
We welcome any additional rows for the comparison as well as discussion on improving the existing table in
No data are associated with this article
This article sheds light on the important and often poorly understood world of research infrastructures providing data and other research services to scientific communities around the world to perform excellent science. It does so by showing the features a research infrastructure has with a road infrastructure, with the aim of making clear why and how public funding must be understood and justified.
The article is well-written and to some extent illuminating. The parallel with road infrastructures is fitting quite well with the purpose of the authors. The parallel may go even further in depicting the parallels with other infrastructures delivering public services such as water supply, sewage system and so on. The article however does not fully exploit the potential of this parallel and remains a bit open and generic in the explanations.
First, the table, which is pretty much the core of the article, presents some elements that should be better qualified, explained and perhaps even reconsidered in a few cases (e.g. "
Second, the policy options and implications do not come immediately from the description of the main common features, especially for those who are not familiar with both research and more traditional infrastructures. Perhaps the table could be split in two to distinguish the key features (first half) from the policy implications on their funding and public justification (second half more or less).
Overall, the article is very interesting and well-conceived, but it would benefit from a small additional effort to better explain the main claim and its implications.
Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader?
Yes
Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly
Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?
Yes
Reviewer Expertise:
Public policy analysis and evaluation, infrastructure appraisal, economic evaluation
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
We thank you very much for this accurate and positive description of our work. You make a very good suggestion relating to expanding the analogies to other public service infrastructures. Along this line and during the writing process, we had actually been tempted to introduce a climate change element to some of the analogies, e.g. how mass transit (train) may not satisfy all the specific transportation needs of all users, just like an international database might not either, yet these are far more cost-effective and climate-friendly than the proliferation of 100s of very specific databases and 1,000s of jeeps on the roads. We have added your suggestions at the end of the article.
We agree with your suggestions on the table. We have split the table as you suggested in version 2 of the article, and have added relevant text in the [now two] tables, which are more readily understandable as a result. We have also invited an additional co-author (Elaine Harrison), with science communications specialism, to reformulate and strengthen the text, in line with the your comments.
This policy brief addresses a very important element of research policy, which is the understanding by decision-makers of the role, relevance, and impact of research infrastructures. In this particular case, of research data infrastructure, by using a comparison with a much well known type of infrastructures: roads. This comparison with a much more mundane example (roads) is aptly supported by a strong argument regarding the usefulness of the infrastructure mostly appears when its activity is disrupted, as normal operation is often taken for granted and thus invisible. The comparison between data research infrastructures and roads is clearly and convincingly argumented. This brief is also timely as funders are increasingly stretched to provide support to existing and new research infrastructures and have to make selective choices in their investments.
Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader?
Yes
Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?
Yes
Reviewer Expertise:
Science policy
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
We are very grateful for your kind words on the usefulness of this policy brief, especially to funders of research infrastructures. We hope that version 2 has strengthened the brief.