Đề thi VSTEP Full C1 — Kháng Thuốc Kháng Khuẩn & Khoa Học Mở (round 6)

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has emerged as one of the most pressing public health challenges of the twenty-first century. When bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites cease to respond to the medicines designed to treat them, common infections become potentially lethal. The phenomenon is driven primarily by the overuse and misuse of antimicrobial agents in human medicine, veterinary practice, and agriculture, creating selective pressure that favours the survival and proliferation of resistant strains. The economic implications are staggering. A landmark 2016 analysis projected that AMR could claim ten million lives annually by 2050, with low- and middle-income countries bearing a disproportionate burden. Beyond mortality, AMR threatens to undermine modern medical procedures—from routine surgeries to chemotherapy—that rely on effective antibiotics for infection control. International responses have been fragmented, though frameworks such as the WHO's Global Action Plan have provided a coordinating scaffold. However, the absence of binding enforcement mechanisms, combined with insufficient investment in novel antibiotic pipelines, has impeded meaningful progress. Addressing AMR demands a coordinated, transdisciplinary approach spanning surveillance, stewardship, and innovation.

Today I'd like to discuss the concept of open science, a paradigm that has gained considerable traction over the past two decades. At its core, open science advocates for the transparent dissemination of research outputs—including data, code, and publications—without paywalls or restrictive licensing. The movement has been propelled by several converging factors. First, the proliferation of digital repositories and preprint servers has dramatically reduced the friction of sharing findings. Second, funding bodies such as the European Union and the NIH have increasingly mandated open-access publication for grant recipients. Third, public trust in scientific institutions has eroded, creating pressure to demonstrate reproducibility and methodological rigor. However, open science is not without tensions. Early-career researchers, particularly those in tenure-track positions, often face a paradox: they are evaluated primarily by high-impact publications housed in subscription journals, yet pressured to share data openly. Furthermore, scholars in the Global South frequently lack the institutional infrastructure and funding to comply with mandates designed in the Global North. The path forward, I would argue, requires recalibrating incentive structures, not merely exhorting researchers to share more.