 Our speaker for today is Dr. Monica Granados. Dr. Monica Granados has a PhD in ecology from McGill University. While working on her PhD, Monica discovered that incentives and academia promote practices that make knowledge less accessible. Since then, Monica has devoted her career to working in the open science space in pursuit of making knowledge more equitable and accessible. As a senior policy advisor at Environment and Climate Change Canada, she provided subject matter expertise and supported the delivery of open science in the government of Canada. Monica is now working at Creative Commons on the open climate campaign promoting open access of climate and biodiversity research. As a member of the leadership team at Pre-Review, Monica works to make peer review more open and diverse. She is also on the board of directors of the Canadian Open Data Society, promoting open data in Canada and alumna of the Frictionless Data Fellowship. Welcome, Monica. Thank you so much, Rachel. Thank you so much for the invitation to be here today, and I can't wait to talk to you folks about the open climate campaign and what we're doing to make climate change and biodiversity research more open, transparent, and accessible. I'm going to start by sharing some slides with you. Today's talk is titled, Hopi on the Paywall, How Unlocking Climate Solutions Can Lead Us to Mitigations and Solutions. What I want to talk to you about first is, why do we want to make knowledge accessible? Why is access to knowledge important? I'm probably speaking to a crowd that knows the importance of this. We are at the Open Education Conference where the purpose of the work that this organization does and those of you who are here today is to make knowledge in the educational space more accessible. I want to take you, though, through a specific case of where we generate knowledge and specifically in the science discipline. So the first example I want to talk to you about is about the ozone layer. So in 1974, two researchers, Melina and Roland, first described the effects of chlorofluoromethanes on the ozone. So they discovered that something was happening to ozone, titled here O3, when it interacted with chlorofluoromethanes. So chlorofluoromethanes were very common in the 1970s because they were used for as refrigerants and sort of commonly used in many of the appliances that were being sold at the time. Except that there was an effect, they described effect on the ozone through this chemical reaction. So CFCs, chlorofluorocarbons, interact with the sun, which interact with ozone in a very sort of simplified sense here. And what happens is that ultimately, it breaks down from O3 to O2. So it was breaking down the ozone and we were able to recognize this as scientists working in that field as a thinning of the ozone. So they measured it using something called the Dobson scale and noticed that there's a decrease in the density of O3 particles and it was popularized as a whole in the ozone. But ozone is the Earth's sunscreen and so what are the effects of that on planet Earth that depends on it? Interestingly, also the reaction was particularly effective in Antarctica. And so maybe when you were growing up, you heard about the ozone hole in Antarctica where there was specific conditions that actually increased that chemical reaction and the breakdown of O3. And if this were to continue, UV radiation at the Earth's surface could dramatically increase. And that's a big problem. You know, as I mentioned earlier, ozone is the Earth's sunscreen and without it, this UV radiation could have some pretty detrimental effects. It could spur on genetic mutations. It could hamper the ability for crops to grow. And so the world recognized this is a big problem and that recognition was surfaced because of the science that described what was happening when fluorofluorocarbons interacted with the ozone. And so we got information from peer-reviewed papers what that knowledge was translated to policy makers and ultimately resulted in the signing of the Montreal Protocol, a multilateral environmental agreement that regulated the production of these chlorofluorocarbons. So we really saw here in this example, a translation of access to this information into a policy change and prevented pretty detrimental effects on the Earth. In 1967, another scientist Radcliffe started noticing an increase in broken eggs in the nests of peregrine falcons. So, you know, it's a really interesting paper because he sort of just describes, oh, there's a lot more broken eggs when I go in and like look at the nests of peregrine falcons. And it sort of coincided with the increase in the use of DDT. It was widely used as a pesticide and insecticide in the 1970s, but it actually originated, its use originated right after World War II and was used also for military applications. In fact, it was so widely used that the scientists who described its use as a pesticide and insecticide, won a Nobel Prize for it. Except that what they didn't really know at the time was that there was what was happening is that this insecticide that was really good at killing insects also had other detrimental effects, including bio accumulations in the bodies of top predators. So how does that happen? So imagine that you've got two animals each with, you know, with a rubber ball inside of it. And so if you now have a animal that eats the two insects, now that animal has two rubber balls inside it. And so if it continues eating, you know, these insects or prey with rubber balls in it, it accumulates these rubber balls. And so now if something comes in and starts to eat that middle what we call trophic layer, the top predator is gonna have a lot of rubber balls in it. And so that's what was happening with peregrine falcons, with bald eagles, a lot of these top predators were starting to have some detrimental effects. In fact, what they found was that DDT prevented normal calcium production in these top predators, which calls thin fragile shells that would break during incubation. So it would make for very fragile eggs, then the birds when they were nesting would sit on the egg and would break them. Normally that wouldn't happen when they've got the appropriate calcium production. But all of these, all of the science led to an understanding of what the application of DDT was doing to the environment. We knew that we had a problem, and this is just in a very specific case that it was causing a difference in the normal calcium production. And this was actually like a bit of a watershed moment in environmental policy. We found, you know, this spurred on the writing of The Silence Brain by Rachel Carson. It also catalyzed the founding of environmental defense and really a realization that humans or anthropogenic effects could have detrimental consequences on the natural world or on the environment. In a specific case in 1972, the EPA canceled most use of DDT because of not only the scientific information about what was happening at the chemical level and at the molecular and biological and sort of the biological consequences on these top predators, but also because people became worried about what was happening to the environment that where they were being exposed to DDT, particularly because it was very liberally used in many different applications. And so again, here we see that access to knowledge is really important. The production of knowledge is really important because that's how we understand the world around us and can lead to policy changes like canceling the use or most uses of DDT or the Montreal Protocol. The last example, most of us probably have good familiarity with it. On December 31st, not too long ago, the World Health Organization in China was informed of cases of pneumonia of unknown origin. And in March of 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. And this problem may be a little bit different than the other two in that it was a world-changing problem. It was a problem that left no one on earth untouched. Now there probably were differential effects of COVID-19, but everyone's life changed with COVID-19 and that spurred something different in our lifetimes. It spurred the recognition that for this problem, we need to have the knowledge about this issue to understand it better and it needs to happen quickly and as soon as possible. We need to accelerate this production of knowledge and the sharing of knowledge. China publicly shared the genetic sequence of COVID-19, the National Science and Technology Advisors so that you science advisors from 12 different countries and funders signed a call for open access to COVID-19 publications. We saw a change in the behavior of scientists as well. 77% of COVID-19 related papers are open access from the snapshot. And there was a huge increase in the number of preprints that were uploaded to preprint servers like BioArchive and MedArchive. And really what this shows is this recognition that we need that knowledge, right? We need that knowledge to understand this problem. In the examples of the ozone layer and in the peregrine falcon, there was a recognition that there was a problem and the use of science to try to address the problem to lead to a policy change. But here we knew that things needed to happen very quickly and couldn't proceed at the scale or speed that normally happens with scholarly communication. There was this ultimate recognition that if we're going to solve the world's biggest problem, then the knowledge about them must be open. And that's really the key to the work we want to do here at the open climate campaign, that for big problems like COVID-19 to get to that policy change to that solution, that mitigation to that treatment, we need to understand the problem. We need access to the place where knowledge is produced and disseminated. And often in science and social science and in political science, it happens through scholarly communication, through publications. And what bigger problem right now that the world is facing than climate change. It's one of the world's most pressing challenges. And like COVID-19 is a challenge that will leave no one untouched. It will also have differing effects due to geographic region, due to historical, due to different histories in countries due to the manifestation of different systems of oppression. But climate change will leave no one untouched. So shouldn't we have all the information available that we possibly can to understand climate change and to understand how we're going to find solutions and mitigations for climate change as one of the world's greatest problem? But that's not the case. Open sharing of research outputs is not the default. And in a way, as someone who has been a scientist, I can understand why it's not. There's not a lot of incentives for scientists to practice in the open. Scientists are incentivized to publish in top journals, you know, with the asterisks of that being determined by different factors, many of them unfair. They're driven by, you know, the incentives that will give them a promotion or that first job, not necessarily making their research accessible or transparent. So knowing this, how much of climate change knowledge or publications is open access. So I'll give you a little bit of a snapshot from some discussions with the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative, which we'll be working with to get more information about this question. But they did a climate change sprint to figure out this question and get some data. So they looked at a time period between 1980 and 2020. They cataloged 169,000 outputs and found that about 57.1% of those outputs were closed and 42% of those outputs were open. Now, remember for COVID-19 publications, it was over 70, we're not there. And they found that, you know, some were used, some were opened by a repository and some by a publisher with a bit of a higher percentage through a repository. But the takeaway here is that for trying to tackle the world's biggest problem, we certainly don't have access to all the knowledge that right now that is being produced about climate change. So what do we wanna do here at the Open Climate Campaign? We wanna change this. We wanna make sharing of research outputs the norm in climate science. Right now there is a wall that is not allowing the science to connect with policymakers, to not connect with other scientists to build on that knowledge. It's not allowing us to mobilize that knowledge into action, into solutions, into mitigations. So we wanna change that. So we've set out 11 goals to make open sharing of outputs the norm in climate science. So this is a four year campaign funded by the Arcadia Fund and the Open Society Foundations and run through a partnership between Creative Commons, Spark and Eiffel. So what are our goals and how are we gonna get there? The first is campaign messaging. So doing work like this and reaching out to people who have connections with researchers to highlight the importance of the work that they are doing and the importance of making that work open and accessible. They are scientists, researchers, these knowledge producers are the ones who have a lot of power to use community resources, to use institutional repositories, to use open tools to help them get to open. We also wanna know a little bit more about where are we now on open access? So say the data that I showed is just a snapshot and it's also from two years ago, where are we now? We want to know what's the, how big is this problem? What's the magnitude of this problem? Are there differences in countries? Are there differences in subfields? And that's work we're going to be doing again with the for an open knowledge initiative to give us some more information about the scope of the problem. We also wanna identify legal and policy barriers. So we know that open sharing is not the default. There are barriers to scientists, but there's also the absence of policy to facilitate open practices, open access publications by science producers, by knowledge producers. So what are they? And we're working with a fantastic steering committee that has decades of experience in this field and understanding what these policy barriers are, how they differ from country to country and how we can use some of the existing policy cover to enable action and the implementation of open policies to help those scientists work in the open. And that is a bulk of the work that we wanna do. I wanna work with government, we wanna work with funders and we wanna work with environmental organizations to create open access policies. So it's not just about saying you should have an open access policy, go do it, it's the right thing to do or there's a moral imperative to do it. Even all those things are true, that hasn't worked so far. So we've been talking about open access for decades, but we still remain at 50, 49% of papers being open in this discipline. So we want to help these three target groups to create these open access policies. It's not just about telling them to do it, we're gonna use the expertise in our steering committee and our partners in the staff at the open climate campaign to write policies that will enable the opening of climate change researchers. And so that will involve going to meetings, face-to-face meetings and then also provide training for implementation. As someone who's worked in the policy field as well, I've seen the chasm between creation of a policy and the implementation of a policy. And so we wanna make sure that we can bridge that chasm so that the people for which the policy applies understands it and follows it. We also want to think about inclusion in international frameworks. So what we mean by that is that decisions about open access and open access practices happen at multiple scales, they happen at your institution, they happen at your organization, they happen within your own country, but they also happen in an international stage as well. And we need to be having conversations about open access when we talk about international frameworks, international policies, international agreements, particularly around climate change and biodiversity. And so we are looking at opportunities like the Convention on Biological Diversity, what kind of conversations are happening around open access and how can open access help get to the goals of these conventions, these agreements, these frameworks. We also want to reach out to other like-minded groups, environmental organizations, people who are producing this knowledge and secure endorsements. And I think this loops back to our first goal. And we want to talk about the importance of this. We've already had conversations with environmental organizations and they believe in this work, but often just don't know how to do it, how to enable openness of their research, their educational resources, any material they have around climate change and biodiversity research. So we want to spread the word and we know that endorsements will help get the message about the open climate campaign now. Eight, number nine is also is really important. And here what this sentence is describing is the need to be inclusive. I think if you've been in this field for some time, you know that open scholarship, open knowledge, certainly open science has been very much driven from a global North perspective. These transitions that we have seen towards open often leave behind certain geographical regions, often low and middle income countries from the conversation and ultimately make for an even less equitable process and access to knowledge. We can't get to open at the expense of low and middle income countries or traditionally excluded voices in open knowledge. And we recognize that. And so one of the important aspects of the campaign is a working group that we are convening with a broad geographical representation to give us feedback on the development of these policies, the development of our input to these international frameworks to ensure that this is really is a global campaign that does center equity. And that what we do to forward open access is not come at the expense of those that are marginalized, particularly in climate change, where that is happening already. We also want to think about the past. So we want to think about one through nine is thinking about how we're gonna change the future, future to be more open to enable open access, to enable the opening of the entire research cycle. But what about foundational research that has already been published? We talked earlier on about how knowledge begets knowledge. It builds on each other. We stand on the shoulders of giants, but we need to have access to that knowledge to be able to build from that. And so while we may look to the future, we also need to look to the past. So we're gonna be looking into putting together a list of the most important or foundational research on climate change and biodiverse knowledge using community input, using input from our group, our goal nine working group and getting a corpus of papers and ensuring that that corpus is open and accessible so that it can enable future research. We also wanna talk to publishers. Publishers are a big part of this conversation and big part of the workflow and scholarly communication. And here we're alluding to the special priority that COVID-19 research received. Should we need to consider this as well for biodiversity research given the scope of the problem? So to summarize what we wanna do with these 11 goals is ultimately to get us to making the open sharing of research outputs the norm in climate science. We're gonna talk about sending information out to highlight the importance of climate change and biodiversity research, but also get information in about the scope of the problem. You wanna work hand in hand with funders of research. So that's government funders, environmental organizations. We're not just going to be advocating for a change or a development of a policy. We wanna work with you to develop that policy to provide that support. I wanna make sure this isn't an international campaign. We wanna learn from the mistakes of sort of previous work in this field and ensure that this has a global perspective, both from an equity perspective, but also because that is what's gonna be most effective to actually get us to our goals. And finally, we wanna open past publications as well. We're looking to the future and make that change, but we also need to think about the past and ensuring that that foundational work which we will build on as knowledge producers is available. So climate change as you might know is a complicated problem. It's multifaceted with many dimensions. Opening climate change and biodiversity research isn't a panacea. It may not necessarily solve the climate crisis, but this is what we can do. This is what participants in this conference who are engaged in this space, who understand the importance of open can do to help tackle the climate crisis, to look at the place where we have power and influence and expertise and make those changes there. Because there's hope behind the paywall. And what I mean by that is that, the solutions to climate change are there. The science is there, the innovation is there. It's just being produced in publications and we need to enable the mobilization of that information, of that knowledge. We need to enable access to other scientists to build on that knowledge. We need to enable the mobilization of that information to policymakers to make decisions and policies and changes to get us to a different climate outcome. The solutions are there. There's hope in behind that paywall that we need to deconstruct. There are energy innovations being published every single week. There's nature-based solutions that, what we mean by that is that there's research happening on what kind of land do we need to protect? What kind of species are particularly important to protect? And that information is really crucial. It's critical for that information to get to decision makers when they are making choices about where development goes or what a construction project looks like or what piece of land to turn into a park or conserve. That information needs to get to policymakers but as someone who has been a policymaker or at least assisted policymakers, I often couldn't get to these papers. I could read the title and the abstract when I knew that something that could be helpful was behind that paywall. And so what we wanna do here at the Open Climate Campaign is change this. We wanna get to that hope. We wanna get to that information. So we want you to join us. You know, this is that piece of the climate change problem that we can help address. So what can you do? What's your rise to action? Visit the Open Climate Campaign website. We've got some action kits as to what you can do, how you can help, how you can enable the release of that information behind paywalls, how to break down those paywalls. Connect us with groups who are working on climate change educational resources. This is incredibly important because we need to ensure that climate change education is not only happening once you're an adult but also when you're going through schooling. So you understand what climate change is and that you can become, you know, that voter, that the scientist, the knowledge producer as you grow into adulthood and understand climate change and its importance. You also are often, you know, in those spaces where you're the one that connects with researchers particularly about open scholarship. You have the ability to talk to these researchers and connect them with tools to open their research. On the Open Climate Campaign website, we've got some resources for researchers on how to publish preprints, how to publish openly using diamond open access methods, how to deposit your manuscript in an institutional repository, how to make your methods open, how to make the entire research process open. And you're the one that can connect them with that. So these are just three calls to action, you're rise to action here. There's many more on the website and you can reach us again either through our website at openclimatecampaign.org. You can follow us on Twitter, our handle is openclimatecamp. Or send us an email, contact at openclimatecampaign.org. You've got questions, suggestions. Let us know. And let's think about that hope. Let's make that change. Thank you so much, Monica. It looks like we do have one question in the chat. Making research results available for open reading is a need close to human rights. However, one of the recent challenges of open access is the charge for publishing. If you don't have money to pay the APC, your research contribution cannot be made known. What proposals do you have in this regard? Yeah, that's a great point. And that's what I was alluding to when we were talking about these shifts in open scholarship. So that first transformation was this recognition that we need to move to open access. But a lot of that has happened through article processing charges or gold open access publisher provided open access. There's a lot of different terminology for it. But ultimately what that, in a simplified sense, is you have to pay to make your paper accessible to everyone. And the model doesn't make a lot of sense. And that may work really well if you're a well-funded institution or maybe you're a well-funded foundation that can afford these article processing charges. But what about institutions that are smaller? What about if you're a scientist or a knowledge producer in a country where these article processing charges sometimes that can go up to $10,000 is a good part of your salary. And so that is why we need to think about other methods to open scholarship besides article processing charges. And so on the open climate campaigning, we talk about a couple of different ways in which you can make your knowledge or your publication accessible. The first is to use preprints. So many journals now have very friendly preprint policies. So you can deposit a preprint which is a version of your manuscript before it has finished the peer review process. And you can publish that as soon as you want. And there's a lot of researchers who, as you saw for COVID-19, preprints became a common occurrence. But also I think that researchers are starting to see that you can start to get feedback earlier on in the process instead of just by three reviewers in a closed process. You also can look at the directory of open access journals which has a list of journals that do not charge an article processing charge. So they are free to publish and also free to read. There's a lot of different models that are used to get sort of to a place where you don't have a article processing charge. Sometimes it's referred to as diamond open access. We've got a section on our website as well on diamond open access. The other method that we talk about on the open climate campaign website is using an institutional repository. So you could choose to publish in the journal of your choice and then publish an author accepted manuscript in your institutional repository which does not have a paywall. And there's some intersecancies there depending on the journal that you're publishing with. Ideally you would put an author accepted manuscript, you would keep the copyright and then license that version to the journal using a CC5 license which enables even more sharing of your research and also then allows immediate access to your paper. But the policies of journals vary which is why I wanna talk about the different ways in which you could approach making your paper open. We have another question. Education, which doesn't result in action is wasted in my opinion. This is especially true when it comes to climate change since we need action on this issue now. However, the challenge lies in bringing this sense of urgency to the masses. Sadly, many of whom do not even believe in climate change. Alternatively, as I have observed via my environmental science efforts is that pollution and climate change are interrelated and I believe that people who are skeptic of climate change would be concerned about pollution. My question is, should we start incorporating pollution terminology to convince skeptics? Yeah, that's a really good question. I'll start with sort of a small caveat in that like the communication of climate change is not my area of expertise. And there are many people who are reading and studying sort of what's the best way to communicate climate change and like the urgency and that the recognition that you have to find a balance between communicating the urgency and also not scaring people into sort of a paralysis about doing things. And I know that there's been research to show that there's a lot of climate anxiety in a lot of young people, young adults because they're worried about the earth that they're going to inherit. But while I was reading about the ozone layer which is a really great, I think example of like the world coming together. If the Montreal Port of Cogniz is one of the only institution or international agreements that was signed by every member state of the United Nations. And one of the things that they talked about was the importance of calling it the ozone hole. Even though as like I explained, it's not quite a hole, it's just, it's sort of a thinning of that atmosphere. And to have like how important it was for people to be able to visualize like what was happening and to be able to understand like the potential consequences that like if we have a hole, then there's more radiation and we could have pretty detrimental consequences. And so I think it's important to think about like, yeah, how do you make this problem tangible? And so talking about pollution, talking about things that like our understandable concepts I think can really help in communicating what as we spoke about is kind of a complex topic. And rather than talking about, you know climate change as a whole to think about what are some like tangible repercussions or tangible effects of climate change and that the terminology really is important. Yeah, I also found that while I was reading about DDT, you know that there was pushback about the, about ceasing the production or ceasing the application of DDT by the environmental protection agency. Obviously the industry that was making DDT was like, well, we don't want this to happen. It's the end of our business. But there was just so much public pressure to ban DDT that policymakers made a change. And so, you know, I think there's some lessons to be learned. I mean, we're in a different political time. We're sort of, we're in a different technological time. But I think there are things that we can learn from past successful campaigns. Thank you so much. As this conference is focused on open education, can you speak a bit about how OE resources and practices fit within the research and data focus of the campaign? Yeah, so one of the things that we want to do is to talk about open educational resources. So the way that we're kind of looking at it is that are in, in the conversations with our target groups. So that's environmental organizations, funders, governments, it's to talk about open access. And that's generally also because that's a bit of like the low hanging fruit. There's been a lot of development around open access. There's a lot of interesting models around open access. And so we'll start to talk about open access with government X, funder Y, and then talk about what are other aspects? What are other knowledge products that you are making that we can also open? So that includes things like other data that they collect. So maybe like monitoring data that they collect that's not associated with the publication, hardware that they may be working on and opening information around the hardware that they are creating. And of course, open educational resources. So you can think of many environmental organizations that make educational resources for multiple ages, that sort of part of their mandate, part of the work that they do, but they don't necessarily make those open. And it's not necessarily because they don't want to. They may just not know how to mark these resources. And so we're gonna go in there, start to talk to them about open access and then go in and have conversations about, well, what are other things that we can help you open? We've got a team of experts here. Let us help you make all of this knowledge that you're making these pamphlets, videos, making those open. And that's where open education, I think is gonna be a big part. And that's work that Creative Commons does pretty regularly going and talking to different groups and helping them make their resources and sometimes open educational resources open and applying a Creative Commons license to them. Thank you so much, Monica. And we have a couple more questions coming in. So I work in a state where climate science and related terminology are misused as a political token. If climate change is spoken, it's taken as an affront against their team. How could I better speak to this issue, to a state organization that would most likely be risk averse to even mentioning climate change? Yeah, I mean, that's obviously, that's a big reason why we're not moving towards climate change. And again, indicative of the complexity of the climate change problem. But I think I'll harken sort of back to this, the comment around innovations and like nature-based solutions and talk about like, what is the economic impact of some of the decisions we are making that are not in line with mitigating climate change. And the example that I'll give is like, one of the things that I really like to work on is, well, the reason I really like to, I like to work on open science because I'm passionate about it because I think that's sort of a moral imperative to do so. But also because it's something that I can speak to metaphorically both sides of the aisle about even though I'm in Canada and we don't really have an aisle that way. And that's because you can speak to the left about the need to make this information open. It's just like, it's the right thing to do and for equity, for transparency reasons. And you can talk to the right about the need for transparency for budgeting reasons and for like access to that information. And so I think what my advice to you would be to think about rather than talking about it from the perspective that maybe you see it is to think about, what are the things that these decision makers care about? And could you use that as an end to talk about climate change or to talk about the effects of climate change? Because ultimately this will become an issue that everyone will care about. But will that be too late? And that is why we want to act now when it's not too late to make changes. To slow the effects of climate change which we're already seeing. Do you have any suggestions for students who are looking to advocate for open access to science? Any talking points or resources? Yeah, so I guess my first action item would be to sign up to the newsletter. So that's where we'll have events about the open climate campaign and how to get involved. We are looking into potentially expanding the open climate campaign and thinking about like what is the, like how can we get the youth involved? They're one of the most important stakeholders. Again, so the open climate campaign is like taking a chunk of the problem and trying to address it but they are a huge part of movement in advocacy for action against climate change. And so we recognize that the importance of that stakeholder group of youth movement. And so we're exploring options for how to get, how to give youth the opportunity to be involved in the campaign. And so the first thing would be to, I think to stay in the loop on the news about potential new work coming up by subscribing to the newsletter. And I think you could just use, and we'd also have action kits and any of those action kits for our other stakeholder groups, I think could be used. If you specifically want some speaking points you can always reach out to the campaign and we've got some speaking points that we've developed for other stakeholders and be happy to share those as well. Thank you so much. I'd be interested in seeing those resources too for my students. Well, another question just came in. When I go to the website, it doesn't say anything about educational institutions including colleges and universities, which makes me wonder what those of us in such institutions might do to contribute. Any thoughts on how higher education and institutions might helpfully contribute? Yeah, and so again, we've got a set of target groups and mostly that's just a, it's also like a capacity issue. So we wanna make sure that we deliver on our goals and we have looked at specific target groups that we wanna work with. But we're constantly thinking about what are other target groups that we can add to the campaign. But for the time being, one of the things you can think about is looking at the researcher action kit. If you are at an educational institution with knowledge producers and likely you are, that's the function of the little knowledge factory called universities and colleges, is to look at the researcher action kit and check out the resources that we have for researchers and help researchers connect to those resources. When I was in grad school, I didn't know anything about open science. I just knew that like I had to publish papers and I shouldn't share any of my data and then I will try to get a job with this like these precious resources that I collected and gave to nobody. And in grad school, like my second year of grad school, I went to a workshop that was hosted by the National Center for Ecological Synthesis and Analysis. And originally I wanted to go just to like learn about the R programming language, which like I still use, I used it to produce some of the graphics today. So that was really helpful, but also it changed the course of my life because I learned about open science. I was introduced to this concept of paywalls, which I never hit because I had an institutional subscription. I was introduced to the concept of open data. I was introduced to the concept of reproducibility and how not only helpful these practices are as for a researcher myself, but also can that sort of immoral imperative that the work that I'm doing should be made available to everybody. And if I hadn't gone to that workshop, I don't know when I would have learned about open science. And so I think there's still a lot of people who are uninitiated and don't really know about open science. And I think that is where you come into play is that you need to be that workshop for people and give them, tell them about open science and then connect them with resources that help them make their research open. Thank you so much. I think we have one final question tying it back to our theme. So our theme this year is rise to action. And one of the reasons we wanted to invite to talk about climate change is that it really underscores the urgency for action. Can you talk a bit about how opening up this research can also improve climate awareness and education? Yeah, absolutely. Like, I mean, I think the knowledge that is produced often, maybe on average, will happen in these little knowledge production factories, institutions, maybe government laboratories, academic centers like universities and colleges. And that information, that knowledge that gets produced first comes out through a publication. And that's just the way that we've built the scholarly communication process. Sort of leaving aside whether we need to reevaluate that, that is the way that the system is working right now and we're trying to sort of work around that system to make it more accessible. So that's sort of the first line of information that goes out. And that information sort of slowly trickles down to sort of as facts, as knowledge that eventually get into a textbook that then gets taught to people, right? I mean, there's changes that have been made in textbooks since I was a kid as we understand the world more. And so it's, the connection here is that if we make that sort of first point of information out more accessible, it'll be easier to get that information into textbooks, into courses, because it's easier to access, it's easier to reproduce, right? Like if something has a CC by license, then you can take it and you can put it into any of your educational materials with attribution. And so I think what we're trying to do here at the Open Climate Campaign is to think about that source, that first point at which knowledge gets out from the knowledge producer, making that sort of blowing that gateway open so that that can then be disseminated out to materials including textbooks and educational resources. Thank you so much, Monica. This has been so enlightening and we would just like to thank you again on behalf of the board and the conference for having you present for our plenary. It was absolutely amazing. Thank you so, so much. My pleasure. Thank you again for the invitation and all the great questions. We're so happy to have you here.