Last week, I attended a two-day virtual conference on the search for the best locations for astronomical observatories in the Arab world. The number of participants fluctuated between 50 and 80 — a record for such technical gatherings in my long experience in the region. Most importantly, the speakers were from various places worldwide, participants were from many Arab countries, but everything was at essentially zero cost. Who could have imagined, much less suggested, something like this before the coronavirus disease (COVID-19)? In the last few months, pushed by necessity, many virtual conferences have been organized, some of them much larger than this astronomy symposium. But for the Arab world, gathering up to 80 people virtually for two days, with no technical glitches almost at all and essentially for free, is unprecedented. Now, the sky is the limit for such activities. Perhaps the most ambitious plan is next month’s big virtual Research and Innovation Summit that the Jordan-based PHI Science Institute intends to hold, with 50-plus speakers, 3,000-plus attendees, a virtual expo, and more. PHI has organized big conferences on the ground for the last few summers, with thousands of participants sharing up-to-date science and state-of-the-art technology and networking with top researchers and innovators from around the world. This year, PHI plans to do this virtually, with plenary and parallel sessions, and speakers and participants joining from around the globe. The big advantage is the cost, which will be a small fraction of the normal physical gathering, while the challenges will be mainly technical (will thousands of youngsters really be able to join from around the Arab world without a glitch?) and linguistic (will all participants be capable of following top-notch presentations in English?). It is an ambitious plan but, if it works, it will be a major turning point for the practice and dissemination of science in the Arab world. Another important development that has been impelled by the coronavirus crisis is the sudden leap in the public’s respect for science. As soon as people realized that the world was not ready for COVID-19 and that it would take many months, perhaps more than a year, to produce a vaccine — without which life will not go back to normal — everyone started to criticize the lack of funding for scientific research in such vital fields, compared to 100-times-bigger military budgets or spending on vanity projects. It wasn’t all rosy for science, however, as the saga over hydroxychloroquine indicated. Indeed, the debates over the efficacy of this medication (previously used for malaria, lupus and other serious illnesses) for COVID-19 have continued unabated ever since a now-famous French researcher claimed positive effects. The most recent episode in this saga was the retraction from The Lancet (perhaps the most reputable medical journal in the world) of a paper that had claimed a negative impact of the drug on COVID-19 patients. The paper was retracted because the big data set on which the researchers made their analyses and drew their negative conclusions has been found to be unreliable. The upshot of this saga was that the public and the media were left confused about the reliability of scientific claims in such vital fields. Indeed, how can researchers ask for much more funding if they produce contradictory results that simply leave us more confused? In fact, what scientists have not succeeded in conveying is that this is quite normal in science. Most often, research is performed, some of it will be flawed (for various reasons), other scientists will redo the work and correct some or most of the previous errors, then more research is performed and more accurate and robust results are obtained. And, after a long-winded process, scientists come to solid conclusions that are widely adopted. In this particular case, the whole process was taking place in the limelight, with every step and every correction reported almost live and discussed in the media, while few people understood what was actually happening. An important development that has been impelled by the coronavirus crisis is the sudden leap in the public’s respect for science. Nidhal Guessoum Last but not least, COVID-19 has helped highlight a key aspect of the scientific process: Collaboration versus competition. Are researchers collaborating or competing in efforts to produce a vaccine for the disease? In research, scientists tend to collaborate: They share data and results, distribute preprints of their papers, set up open databases (for example, coronavirus sequences that help chart mutations and virus transmissions), etc. However, they will compete when they work for companies (e.g., pharmaceutical firms) that want to produce a lucrative vaccine or drug. In a nutshell, the science is collaborative; the economics is competitive. The pandemic is rapidly changing the world in many vital fields, from education to health and science. It is important for us to learn important lessons from this crisis in order to steer the world in the right direction. One clear and crucial lesson we have learned is the central importance of science in such situations, and indeed in almost all areas of life and society. Let us help science improve the world. Nidhal Guessoum is a professor at the American University of Sharjah, UAE. Twitter: @NidhalGuessoum Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view