The purpose of a fire tower – wildfire monitoring and warning – derives from its tall, open design. As a metaphor for science, the fire tower would mark an improvement over the ivory tower. Inside its impenetrable walls, the opaque ivory tower hides its purpose. Conversely, with its scaffolding, staircases, communications tech, and observation deck, a fire tower neither conceals arcana nor serves as a fortress. The metaphor of the fire tower could help the scientific community earn once again its privileged place in society. Paraphrasing the early 20th-century US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: if the broad light of day shines upon our actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects (https://tinyurl.com/4frb989t). Transparency can build public trust in science.

The privilege once enjoyed by science seems precious and uncertain today. That uncertainty has its roots in partisan politics and scientists deserve part of the blame, even if their work is nonpartisan. The erosion of public trust in science is due in part to several shortcomings of the ivory tower: scientists have not practiced a penetrating, disinfecting transparency but instead have claimed value-neutrality wrapped in objectivity; the reproducibility crisis in science has undermined peer review's perceived stamp of approval; and the language within scientific papers is often shrouded in mystery by jargon, which adds to opacity. Consequently, our most public works may lead readers to suspect those in ivory towers of ulterior motives.

Here I frame scientific journals as a privileged subset of the Free Press as understood by the “freedom of the press” rights enshrined in so many national constitutions worldwide. Are journals yet another voice in the babel of the Free Press or do they deserve a special position therein? In a healthy democracy, babel and partisan press are not problems unless there is a monopoly of press ownership that imposes one partisan view, paraphrasing E.B. White's essays “On Democracy”. In short, the more voices, the better – and let the reader sort out which are more persuasive. If we seek that privileged position of greater credibility in the babel of the Free Press, then expect continuous challenge and zero deference. Indeed, we will deserve widespread skepticism if we do not undergo comprehensive efforts to embrace transparency. If instead we rely on being a more persuasive voice in the general cacophony, then we should interrogate the basis for our vaunted persuasiveness.

Consider the attributes that make scientists persuasive or credible. Scientists do not derive the privilege of credibility through expert qualifications and years of devotion. Bias can hide from view even within the most credentialed and most experienced. Rather, scientists derive their credibility through transparent methods and the value their findings bring to others.

Explaining our methods to the public is essential, and partnerships with experts in science communications should help. Greater transparency can also be advanced by embracing open science interventions for data sharing and reforms to peer review, including more thorough disclosures of financial and non-financial competing interests. Too many journals still ask prospective authors to self-report these. Self-policing is respectable but should be community-based, especially when the potential payoffs for cheating may be notoriously hard to detect. Such disclosures should not be subject only to internal evaluation within peer review. Rather, every author and reviewer could have comprehensive, publicly available, and up-to-date profiles, detailing their funding sources, affiliations, memberships, and so forth, with a unique identifier like an ORCID ID, which would be published with their articles. A first step would be for scientists to include, along with their CVs, lists of all funding received in the past 10 years on their institutional websites. Relatedly, biased aspects of peer review should be purged. Selection of potential reviewers could be expanded from the narrow subset of privileged individuals chosen by editors (or more worryingly, those recommended by the authors themselves) to a broader cross-section of the scientific community. Of course, a more open commentary must be curated to ensure civility and constructive criticism and to protect reviewers from reprisals. These ideas need testing and refinement but we should not delay.

Discarding one metaphor and erecting another may help us to re-imagine and communicate the relationship of science to the public. We should want an inviting, airy place to discuss ideas and debate – not a cold, airless, colonial ivory fortress to defend. I recommend we embrace the fire tower's transparency to climb high, see far, and be heard widely. Heights also provide priceless quiet and detachment. Science can regain its privileged high position, not to look down on our fellows, but for unimpeded distant views and to amplify our findings.

消防塔的用途——野火监测和预警——源于其高大、开放的设计。作为科学的隐喻，火塔将标志着对象牙塔的改进。在其坚不可摧的墙壁内，不透明的象牙塔隐藏着它的用途。相反，拥有脚手架、楼梯、通讯技术和观景台的消防塔既不能隐藏奥秘，也不能充当堡垒。消防塔的比喻可以帮助科学界再次赢得其在社会中的特权地位。套用 20 世纪初美国最高法院法官 Louis Brandeis 的话：如果阳光照射在我们的行为上，就会像阳光消毒一样净化它们 (https://tinyurl.com/4frb989t)。透明度可以建立公众对科学的信任。

科学曾经享有的特权在今天看来显得弥足珍贵且充满不确定性。这种不确定性根源于党派政治，科学家应该承担部分责任，即使他们的工作是无党派的。公众对科学信任的削弱部分是由于象牙塔的几个缺点：科学家没有实行穿透性、消毒性的透明度，而是声称客观性中的价值中立；科学的可重复性危机削弱了同行评审的认可印记；科学论文中的语言常常被行话笼罩在神秘之中，这增加了不透明性。因此，我们大部分的公开作品可能会让读者怀疑象牙塔里的人别有用心。

在这里，我将科学期刊视为一个特权子集新闻自由的含义是世界各地许多国家宪法所规定的“新闻自由”权利。期刊是自由新闻界的另一种声音，还是应该在其中享有特殊的地位？在一个健康的民主国家，巴贝尔和党派媒体并不是问题，除非媒体所有权被垄断，强加一种党派观点，正如 EB 怀特的文章“论民主”。简而言之，声音越多越好，让读者选出哪些更有说服力。如果我们在自由新闻的喧嚣中寻求更大可信度的特权地位，那么就会期待持续的挑战和零尊重。事实上，如果我们不采取全面的努力来实现透明度，我们将受到广泛的怀疑。

考虑一下使科学家具有说服力或可信度的属性。科学家并不是通过专家资格和多年的奉献而获得可信度的特权。即使在最有资格和最有经验的人内部，偏见也可能隐藏起来。相反，科学家通过透明的方法以及他们的发现给他人带来的价值来获得可信度。

向公众解释我们的方法至关重要，与科学传播专家的合作应该会有所帮助。通过采用开放科学干预措施进行数据共享和同行评审改革，包括更彻底地披露财务和非财务竞争利益，也可以提高透明度。太多期刊仍然要求潜在作者自我报告这些内容。自我监管是值得尊重的，但应该以社区为基础，特别是当作弊的潜在回报可能非常难以察觉时。此类披露不应仅接受同行评审中的内部评估。相反，每个作者和审稿人都可以拥有全面的、公开的、最新的个人资料，详细说明他们的资金来源、从属关系、会员身份等，并具有唯一的标识符，如 ORCID ID、这将与他们的文章一起发表。科学家的第一步是在他们的简历中列出过去 10 年在其机构网站上收到的所有资助的列表。与此相关的是，同行评审中存在偏见的方面应该被清除。潜在审稿人的选择可以从编辑选择的少数特权个人（或更令人担忧的是作者自己推荐的人）扩大到科学界更广泛的横截面。当然，必须策划更加开放的评论，以确保文明和建设性的批评，并保护审稿人免受报复。这些想法需要测试和完善，但我们不应该拖延。其机构网站上列出了过去 10 年收到的所有资金的列表。与此相关的是，同行评审中存在偏见的方面应该被清除。潜在审稿人的选择可以从编辑选择的少数特权个人（或更令人担忧的是作者自己推荐的人）扩大到科学界更广泛的横截面。当然，必须策划更加开放的评论，以确保文明和建设性的批评，并保护审稿人免受报复。这些想法需要测试和完善，但我们不应该拖延。其机构网站上列出了过去 10 年收到的所有资金的列表。与此相关的是，同行评审中存在偏见的方面应该被清除。潜在审稿人的选择可以从编辑选择的少数特权个人（或更令人担忧的是作者自己推荐的人）扩大到科学界更广泛的横截面。当然，必须策划更加开放的评论，以确保文明和建设性的批评，并保护审稿人免受报复。这些想法需要测试和完善，但我们不应该拖延。作者自己推荐的那些）向科学界更广泛的领域传播。当然，必须策划更加开放的评论，以确保文明和建设性的批评，并保护审稿人免受报复。这些想法需要测试和完善，但我们不应该拖延。作者自己推荐的那些）向科学界更广泛的领域传播。当然，必须策划更加开放的评论，以确保文明和建设性的批评，并保护审稿人免受报复。这些想法需要测试和完善，但我们不应该拖延。

抛弃一个隐喻并建立另一个隐喻可能有助于我们重新想象科学与公众的关系并将其传达给公众。我们应该想要一个有吸引力的、通风的地方来讨论想法和辩论——而不是一个寒冷、空气不流通、需要保卫的殖民象牙堡垒。我建议我们拥抱消防塔的透明度，以爬得更高、看得更远、被广泛听到。高地还提供无价的安静和超然。科学可以重新获得其特权的崇高地位，不是为了看不起我们的同胞，而是为了畅通无阻的远方视野并放大我们的发现。