Protecting the integrity of survey research.

Although polling is not irredeemably broken, changes in technology and society create challenges that, if not addressed well, can threaten the quality of election polls and other important surveys on topics such as the economy. This essay describes some of these challenges and recommends remediations to protect the integrity of all kinds of survey research, including election polls. These 12 recommendations specify ways that survey researchers, and those who use polls and other public-oriented surveys, can increase the accuracy and trustworthiness of their data and analyses. Many of these recommendations align practice with the scientific norms of transparency, clarity, and self-correction. The transparency recommendations focus on improving disclosure of factors that affect the nature and quality of survey data. The clarity recommendations call for more precise use of terms such as "representative sample" and clear description of survey attributes that can affect accuracy. The recommendation about correcting the record urges the creation of a publicly available, professionally curated archive of identified technical problems and their remedies. The paper also calls for development of better benchmarks and for additional research on the effects of panel conditioning. Finally, the authors suggest ways to help people who want to use or learn from survey research understand the strengths and limitations of surveys and distinguish legitimate and problematic uses of these methods.

Five years of Science Robotics.

Looking back at the last 5 years of Science Robotics and looking forward to the next 5.

Transparency in authors' contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication.

In keeping with the growing movement in scientific publishing toward transparency in data and methods, we propose changes to journal authorship policies and procedures to provide insight into which author is responsible for which contributions, better assurance that the list is complete, and clearly articulated standards to justify earning authorship credit. To accomplish these goals, we recommend that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) (docs.casrai.org/CRediT) methodology for attributing contributions, include this information in article metadata, and require authors to use the ORCID persistent digital identifier (https://orcid.org). Additionally, we recommend that universities and research institutions articulate expectations about author roles and responsibilities to provide a point of common understanding for discussion of authorship across research teams. Furthermore, we propose that funding agencies adopt the ORCID identifier and accept the CRediT taxonomy. We encourage scientific societies to further authorship transparency by signing on to these recommendations and promoting them through their meetings and publications programs.

Convergence in the Geosciences.

The 21st century presents unprecedented challenges if society is to continue to provide abundant energy, water, and food, and high quality housing and medical care to a growing global population. Deforestation and aquifer depletion are at unsustainable rates, and use of fossil fuels is leading to unprecedented climate change. Geoscientists can confront these challenges by expanding partnerships with other disciplines. "Convergence," the integration of engineering, physical sciences, computation, and life sciences to benefit health, energy, and the environment, has been successfully developed for biomedical research. It is time for the geosciences to embrace convergence, as our future depends upon it.

Scientific basis for safely shutting in the Macondo Well after the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout.

As part of the government response to the Deepwater Horizon blowout, a Well Integrity Team evaluated the geologic hazards of shutting in the Macondo Well at the seafloor and determined the conditions under which it could safely be undertaken. Of particular concern was the possibility that, under the anticipated high shut-in pressures, oil could leak out of the well casing below the seafloor. Such a leak could lead to new geologic pathways for hydrocarbon release to the Gulf of Mexico. Evaluating this hazard required analyses of 2D and 3D seismic surveys, seafloor bathymetry, sediment properties, geophysical well logs, and drilling data to assess the geological, hydrological, and geomechanical conditions around the Macondo Well. After the well was successfully capped and shut in on July 15, 2010, a variety of monitoring activities were used to assess subsurface well integrity. These activities included acquisition of wellhead pressure data, marine multichannel seismic profiles, seafloor and water-column sonar surveys, and wellhead visual/acoustic monitoring. These data showed that the Macondo Well was not leaking after shut in, and therefore, it could remain safely shut until reservoir pressures were suppressed (killed) with heavy drilling mud and the well was sealed with cement.

Applications of science and engineering to quantify and control the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The unprecedented engagement of scientists from government, academia, and industry enabled multiple unanticipated and unique problems to be addressed during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. During the months between the initial blowout on April 20, 2010, and the final well kill on September 19, 2010, researchers prepared options, analyses of tradeoffs, assessments, and calculations of uncertainties associated with the flow rate of the well, well shut in, killing the well, and determination of the location of oil released into the environment. This information was used in near real time by the National Incident Commander and other government decision-makers. It increased transparency into BP's proposed actions and gave the government confidence that, at each stage proposed, courses of action had been thoroughly vetted to reduce risk to human life and the environment and improve chances of success.

Science in support of the Deepwater Horizon response.

This introduction to the Special Feature presents the context for science during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response, summarizes how scientific knowledge was integrated across disciplines and statutory responsibilities, identifies areas where scientific information was accurate and where it was not, and considers lessons learned and recommendations for future research and response. Scientific information was integrated within and across federal and state agencies, with input from nongovernmental scientists, across a diverse portfolio of needs--stopping the flow of oil, estimating the amount of oil, capturing and recovering the oil, tracking and forecasting surface oil, protecting coastal and oceanic wildlife and habitat, managing fisheries, and protecting the safety of seafood. Disciplines involved included atmospheric, oceanographic, biogeochemical, ecological, health, biological, and chemical sciences, physics, geology, and mechanical and chemical engineering. Platforms ranged from satellites and planes to ships, buoys, gliders, and remotely operated vehicles to laboratories and computer simulations. The unprecedented response effort depended directly on intense and extensive scientific and engineering data, information, and advice. Many valuable lessons were learned that should be applied to future events.

Review of flow rate estimates of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The unprecedented nature of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill required the application of research methods to estimate the rate at which oil was escaping from the well in the deep sea, its disposition after it entered the ocean, and total reservoir depletion. Here, we review what advances were made in scientific understanding of quantification of flow rates during deep sea oil well blowouts. We assess the degree to which a consensus was reached on the flow rate of the well by comparing in situ observations of the leaking well with a time-dependent flow rate model derived from pressure readings taken after the Macondo well was shut in for the well integrity test. Model simulations also proved valuable for predicting the effect of partial deployment of the blowout preventer rams on flow rate. Taken together, the scientific analyses support flow rates in the range of ∼50,000-70,000 barrels/d, perhaps modestly decreasing over the duration of the oil spill, for a total release of ∼5.0 million barrels of oil, not accounting for BP's collection effort. By quantifying the amount of oil at different locations (wellhead, ocean surface, and atmosphere), we conclude that just over 2 million barrels of oil (after accounting for containment) and all of the released methane remained in the deep sea. By better understanding the fate of the hydrocarbons, the total discharge can be partitioned into separate components that pose threats to deep sea vs. coastal ecosystems, allowing responders in future events to scale their actions accordingly.