Manifesto v0.2 – June 2026
OSC is an experiment, and this manifesto should be read in that spirit. Many of the ideas here are still taking shape. We expect the project to change through iteration, dialogue, and experience.
Process note: how this manifesto emerged and evolved through experience, reading, reflection, and collaboration with AI.
Contents:
When Performance Stifles Learning
It is no secret that contemporary high school students often feel intense pressure to perform—whether for teachers, college admissions officers, future employers, or their peers on social media. No one person or institution created this pressure. The scarcity of awards, spots in prestigious colleges, and lucrative careers naturally incentivizes students to anticipate how others will judge their work. Students may feel like they have no choice but to put their best foot forward for various gatekeepers.
The pressure to perform has many well-documented costs, including psychological stress, physical exhaustion, and the economic expense of college prep and extracurricular activities. Without denying those urgent problems, OSC is specifically concerned with intellectual costs—the way that cultures of performance, which operate chiefly on extrinsic motivation, can stifle cultures of inquiry, which operate more on intrinsic motivation.
Fixating on a final performance—the splashy science fair project, the award-winning essay, the flawless piano recital—obscures the rich, messy learning that occurs along the way. A performance mindset can discourage students from exploring, tinkering, and experimenting in ways that reveal any imperfections. Stumbling (sometimes literally) is regarded as a normal part of early childhood growth; children routinely explore their surroundings out of pure curiosity, with no expectation of a “correct” answer or formal recognition. But by high school, many young people learn never to stumble in public and increasingly fear stumbling at all. Prevailing culture tends not to celebrate the science project that produces null results, the twenty rough drafts of an essay, or the missed notes while learning or performing a piano piece. Yet, each of those scenarios might offer more opportunities for learning than playing it safe with an activity you’re already confident will succeed.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to do difficult things well and earn the approval of others; evolution wired humans for mastery and enjoying social esteem. A healthy dose of competition can powerfully motivate people to produce their best work. OSC does not want to obliterate the useful aspects of performance culture, but only to help students find a fulfilling balance between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation—to let their inner curiosity and not just accolades guide their lives.
Genuine Inquiry Requires Different Conditions
OSC aims to provide an environment for genuine rather than performative inquiry. By “genuine inquiry” we mean seeking truth from a place of curiosity and intellectual humility. The sentiment guiding genuine inquiry is “I wonder what explains this” rather than “I wonder what people will think of me.”
OSC also defines itself according to what it does not prioritize: bold claims, shocking discoveries, and dramatic breakthroughs. Knowledge often advances through patient observation, verification, replication, and revision. Sometimes, progress comes not from unveiling something brand new but rather from amending prior conclusions or correcting popular assumptions.
As an online platform, OSC allows students anywhere to pursue intellectual projects in a community that celebrates uncertainty, false starts, null results, and updating one’s beliefs in the face of new evidence. These are natural parts of rigorous truth-seeking yet often remain hidden behind polished reports and presentations. OSC showcases the research process, not just flashy end results.
AI Changes the Stakes
At the time of writing this manifesto, heated debates about student AI use tended to surround three themes: 1) how to AI-proof traditional class assignments, 2) how to equip students with the AI skills necessary to thrive (or merely survive) on the job market, and 3) how to ensure that students use AI to augment and not erode their cognitive abilities. OSC was founded on the premise that these issues, while real, miss a deeper concern: Under what conditions can a culture of genuine inquiry withstand the pressure to perform?
That question predates AI, but AI raises its salience. Educational institutions had already optimized for producing artifacts—grades, test scores, diplomas, trophies—long before students could whip up essays or problem sets in a few keystrokes. However, AI changes the stakes by switching the scarce resource from information to a vague cocktail of curiosity, intellectual ownership, taste, and sustained attention. The locus of difficulty shifts from “How do I find information on X or produce output Y?” to “Which puzzles are worth investigating? Which explanations are convincing? Which ideas are genuinely my own?”
OSC does not regard this solely as a problem, but rather as a fascinating development worth exploring alongside students. It is increasingly difficult to neatly classify ideas as either human-generated or AI-generated. This ambiguity, too, is not entirely novel. The history of science and intellectual life reminds us that ideas often arise from teamwork rather than solitary genius. AI is not the first mode of intellectual collaboration, though it may be an unusually powerful and dizzying one.
Indeed, AI presents exciting opportunities particularly for young people. Periods of technological change sometimes allow talented newcomers to contribute ideas before expertise concentrates behind more established institutions. The early history of computing offers many examples.
OSC’s main answer to the AI debates is to encourage participants to thoroughly document their intellectual journey from question to answer. We do not tell students whether or when to use AI. We are less interested in who (or what) originated an idea than how it came about. How did the student shape a project? Did they revise their thinking along the way, with or without AI input? Did they come away with deeper understanding, sharper skills, and greater confidence in their ability to tackle difficult questions? Participants can document their work and personal development with journals, logs, checklists, lab notebooks, records of AI interactions, or formats of their own invention. The rise of AI reinforces the importance of transparency and intellectual humility, especially given how rapidly the technology evolves.
What OSC Is Trying to Build
OSC is trying to build a culture of genuine inquiry, a community of learners, and a public record of intellectual development.
OSC draws inspiration from the open science movement, extending it to high school students beyond the universities and research institutes where it first emerged. Over the past several decades, scholars across disciplines from medicine to economics have paid growing attention to the accessibility, transparency, and credibility of their insights. Open science acknowledges that while curiosity may be essential for advancing knowledge, rigor also matters. Genuine inquiry begins with a question that fascinates you, but it ends with an answer you can trust, not one that just feels right.
OSC recognizes that norms around both curiosity and intellectual rigor take root long before researchers arrive at graduate school, or even college. At the same time, we do not insist that participants aspire to research careers. OSC is a place to play intellectually, cultivate deeper habits of mind, and discern what vocations and avocations to pursue later in life.
Some aspects of the open science movement can be quite technical: pre-analysis plans, replication files, and so forth. OSC does not belabor these. Instead, it draws from the broader ethos of open science to introduce students to the culture—as opposed to the mechanical implementation—of transparently documenting and sharing one’s inquiries. Participants may choose to sample more formal techniques of doing open science, but they are free to experiment with their own formats for expressing open science principles. They might also undertake projects that do not fit into the conventional mold of “science.”
OSC hopes to build an intellectual community whose members read each other’s work, troubleshoot together, and exchange constructive feedback. Documenting one’s mistakes and revisions in a group can attenuate the fear of taking intellectual risks. Working in public also makes more of the process visible for others to learn from. Finally, a community can provide healthy forms of recognition. Recognition means more than prizes, rankings, and formal distinctions. OSC downplays those in favor of less glamorous but arguably more meaningful rewards such as peer respect, attentive feedback, and the knowledge that others have learned from your work.
OSC complements rather than replaces traditional learning models. Participants may find that OSC invigorates their experiences back at school, emboldening them to carve out their own spaces for genuine inquiry against the grain of performance culture.
OSC’s initial blueprint leaves plenty of space for additions. New practices, traditions, and forms of participation will develop over time. The institution will be shaped not only by its founders but also by the people who participate in it.
Further Reading
This manifesto draws inspiration from many sources, although its primary influences in the future will be participants themselves. Readers interested in the ideas behind OSC may enjoy some of the books, essays, and organizations that helped shape it.
Inquiry and Education
“Rethinking High-School Science Fairs” (Leah Libresco Sargeant) — A reimagining of the science fair as a venue for genuine inquiry rather than performance.
Never Enough: When Achievement Culture Becomes Toxic-and What We Can Do About It (Jennifer Breheny Wallace) — Meditations on youth achievement culture.
Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life (William Deresiewicz) — A critique of elite education and its tendency to reward achievement over purpose.
“Restoring Science to Science Education” (Bruce Alberts) — A case for engaging students in the scientific process rather than teaching established facts.
The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us About the Mind (Alison Gopnik, Andrew N. Meltzoff, and Patricia K. Kuhl) — An argument that children naturally learn like scientists: by exploring, testing ideas, and revising their understanding of the world.
Open Science and Research Credibility
The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology: A Manifesto for Reforming the Culture of Scientific Practice (Chris Chambers) — A call for greater transparency, rigor, and honesty in psychology and science more broadly.
Transparent and Reproducible Social Science Research: How to Do Open Science (Garret Christensen, Jeremy Freese, and Edward Miguel) — A practical introduction to open science.
“A Manifesto for Reproducible Science” (Marcus R. Munafò et al.) — An overview of pivotal reforms in scientific culture.
Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences (BITSS) — Resources, training, and events for improving the credibility of social science.
Center for Open Science — An organization dedicated to making research more transparent, accessible, and trustworthy.
Collaboration, Communities, and Knowledge Creation
The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution (Walter Isaacson) — A history of collaborative innovation that challenges individualistic accounts of creativity.
The Genius Myth: A Curious History of a Dangerous Idea (Helen Lewis) — A corrective to solitary-genius narratives.
Tools for Thought: The History and Future of Mind-Expanding Technology (Howard Rheingold) — An exploration of how new intellectual tools can expand participation in knowledge creation, especially for young people.
Working in Public: The Making and Maintenance of Open Source Software (Nadia Eghbal) — An examination of how online communities generate great work while struggling to maintain it.
Questions? hello@opensciencechallenge.org