As a result of the COVID-19 epidemic, the biomedical science community underwent major changes, according to a speaker at a conference.

Shirley M. Tilghman, PhD, emeritus professor of molecular biology and public affairs and former president of Princeton University, said the scientific community faced “twin challenges” starting in March 2020: protecting scientific productivity and the careers of young scientists while also quickly localizing threats from a global pandemic with effective public health measures, therapies, and vaccines. “The pandemic also increased public awareness about racial disparities in science and the role of racial bias in their exclusion,” she explained.

According to Dr. Tilghman, a founding member of NIH’s National Advisory Council for the Human Genome Project, “Lockdown was followed almost immediately by the killing of George Floyd, reigniting the Black Lives Matter movement and catalyzing a great national awakening to the reality of systemic racism that has left no one untouched.” There is a connection between the two crises: “The pandemic revealed shocking disparities in infection and mortality rates related to COVID-19 among Black, Hispanic, and indigenous people in the United States.”

Tilghman outlined many lessons that researchers might learn from the crises and how those lessons can help boost the scientific endeavor.

As a result of the COVID-19 urgency, researchers are increasingly using preprints, which are entire draft research publications that are posted publicly before a formal peer review, to inform colleagues of the progress being made on the disease and its subsequent consequences, Tilghman added. Since funding bodies like the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have made preprints more readily available in the life sciences, their use has skyrocketed.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, 30% of all COVID-19 applications were uploaded to bioarchives first by April 2021,” Tilghman noted in a statement.

There are drawbacks to preprints. Tilghman warned that research undertaken without peer-review can be shoddy, deceptive, or even incorrect. But this should not deter the growth of “open science.”

What will happen to this trend of openly disseminating scientific articles before they are peer-reviewed and accepted by publications after the pandemic??” Tilghman made the statement. It would be wonderful if it was the case. Because of this, the pandemic would have a long-term, positive impact. Research can be published more quickly by preprinting articles rather than waiting for lengthy and frequently controversial peer review processes, which also democratizes science for those who can’t afford to subscribe to pricey journals.

The adoption of video conferencing services like Zoom has made it possible for everyone with an Internet connection to attend a tiny, local seminar at an institution that was only accessible to the local scientific community before the epidemic.

Even though the pandemic is gone, Tilghman believes that “the gears the pandemic set in motion will not be able to reverse themselves when this is over,” he added.

Tilghman noted that in addition to the formation of new teams, experts deferred existing research initiatives in order to focus on COVID-19.

Seeing the community respond so swiftly to a worldwide issue and forsake their own work in favor of the greater good was encouraging, Tilghman added. “Students and fellows have been particularly impacted by this response.”

Graduate students, postdoctoral students, and early-career researchers have been particularly severely hit by the pandemic’s impact on their career prospects, Tilghman said. Many of these researchers were left without the resources and momentum they needed to carry out their research as a result. As colleges and labs shut down, many researchers were left in limbo.

Government and commercial funding institutions must recognize and compensate for the time that these young scientists have lost by providing flexible extensions of assistance,” Tilghman added. At this time, “if ever we needed funding for adaptability, it is now.”

Tilghman urged scientists and researchers to discover new ways to collaborate with individuals who will benefit from their research during and after the pandemic.

A report by the Sabin-Aspen Vaccine Policy and Science Group, which I co-chair, found that the most effective method of persuading a hesitant mother to vaccinate her children is a one-on-one conversation with an understanding nurse or pediatrician who is willing to listen to her concerns first,” Tilghman stated.

Understanding how cultural experience and group identification influence trust in scientific research is equally critical for behavioral scientists, as well as how to overcome doubt of well-established scientific conclusions.

As Tilghman put it, “There is a lot of work to be done to get through this plague with a stronger scientific enterprise that is inclusive, more open to sharing our research with each other and with those who make science possible, and more attentive to future success for the youngest practitioners.” “I have high hopes that we will succeed.”