Open Science - Free Inventions for Everyone

This is the first time I suggest the concept Open Science directly. I have been working on this concept for some months, and it is not finished, but please comment!

Open Science my suggestion to a concept that is thought to get around many of hindrances of the technological advances discussed in this blog, by making it free and available for everyone (indicated by this blog that it is currently not).

The Main Concept:
The prime objective of Open Science is that the inventions reach the users who can benefit from them and not get blocked in the process by third parties (inventors being first and users second parties).


Open Science is to be similar to Open Source, but developing openly on inventions rather than text code. A forum is needed for this development, and I imagine a net database would be best suited for this. The inventor/scientist uploads his blueprints, supportive investigation reports, comments, guides and other supportive information to the forum, thus giving up the idea as a protected patented and make it free to use and alter for all.

Money!
The forefitted claim to hypothetical financial gains from an expensive patent can be gained by voluntary donation economy, consultant work and product specific advertisement (like Googles ads) that can help interested builders to get parts from dealers through the forum. If people get into the habit that they can get the best technology, free, it may be hard to pay for unnecessarily high priced products (energy for example).

The social advantages:
Making inventions and build-yourself-guides available without restrictions on the net, potentially makes it accessible for anyone with Internet access; even third world countries. Hopefully, more people with similar ideas and input for a good invention can feed the project to improve making more people involved in developing (and accepting) important technologies, regardless of their background.

The disadvantages:
Third parties may have an interest in stopping an initiative as Open Science. Governments may find it dangerous that technology is globally available, since every technology can be abused as well as bring the civilization a step up the ladder. Companies with competing products will most likely feel threatened by free (and perhaps better) alternatives and attempt lawsuits. This is one of the reasons for keeping the concept free is crucial. If none are selling, there is no physical product and the know-how is free and documented (and thus unpatentable) - it should be difficult to build a case.

Other Open Science projects:
On the net an Open Science project already exist creating open source software (for free) for science applications. However this is not open science, but applications, and since I have not found a better term for this idea, I will stick with Open Science until a better alternative present itself. Journals also use the term for scientists publishing for a larger fee making it free to download in contrast to subscribing to journals. This is the opposite of open science in my opinion. The closest thing I found to my own idea so far is the Open Notebook Science (idea by Jean-Claude Bradley) that simply lets anyone read your science notes, not just the publications.

Warning:
Many have given me the feedback that they think I want to start a movement or change the world. Not really. Too many have tried and failed in getting people to do more than nod politely in consent from the arm chair. My idea with Open Science is to appeal to the industrial countries national sport: apathy. The idea is like Wiki books, that gives the knowledge directly to those who are willing to receive it, around economical interests and politics (I don't even want to fight them). People can get the solutions to what they need, if they can get out of their arm chair. If western countries don't - then let the Chinese take initiative, or someone else. In the end things are what we make of them. I can not predict what a successful outcome looks like for Open Science to the world.

Educational Blocks - Amazing what We do not Know

In my highschool advanced physics class of my final year, I asked my physics teacher while working with thermodynamics: "Aren't there a device that can make electricity of heat (explaining that I did not mean heating something, but heat itself)?" I never forget the look on my teaches face, I could see he struggled with himself to put his words in a way where he would not wound me in my ignorance (I liked my physics teacher, he is a good person). He told me kindly that if anyone would ever invent such a device they would be filthy rich. I naturally interperted this answer as a "no".

It is not until now, during my investigations for this blog, I know that this device were invented years earlier than my question to my teacher. This device was developed by Dennis Lee and his team and went into production in 1984 originally ass a low temperature phase change system (any weather) for producing heat. It was named The Alternative and is one of the technologies that actaully came into production and use in USA, and as it claimed. It was a little later that is device was discovered to produce energy as well with some modifications involving a modified Sterling engine, originally invented by Dr Robert Stirling in 1816. The device however went out of production in a competitive struggle with athoroties and cooperations that I will let the reader investigate themselves, since it is hard to present it objectivly. Read for yourselves (1, 2) about this product. The short story is that the inventor had to go to jail for selling the device on some very odd charges (if any).

As I wrote previously, my teacher and others teachers, have a lot of responsebility in molding our minds to be able to believe in greater advances. I am certain they do not do it intentionally. But I also had an opposite statement, to the skeptism I got in school, from a professor in the university, that opened my eyes again. When I asked him supportive questions to the class that had ended, he suprisingly said "we don't know!" I was in the begining of my studies and professors were like small gods of knowledge - how could they not know? I was curious and asked him to speculate. To this he replied: "It is amazing what we scientists do not know! That is what makes it so fun!" I can only wish more scientists, teachers and people were like him. If we do not know, it does not mean it can not exist - just that we have not discovered why it can work!

Movement Blocks - The road the Hell; a bridge of good intentions

During my biochemical studies I followed a course in Environmental Chemistry instructed by lector Søren Toxsværd (Copenhagen University, Department of Chemistry). During his lectures he often shared his vast knowledge of chemical history. This story he told us when explaining the chemical properties of cement.

As most people now know, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), also known as Freon, are bad for the environment but a good refrigerant. It is a odorless, nontoxic, colorless and nonflammable gas that makes it very safe to be around. But in 1972 F. Sherwood Rowland and Mary Jose discovered that once the released CFCs reached the stratosphere the ultraviolet light could release chlorine. The chlorine has a long term effect on the atmoshperic chemistry in breaking down ozone. But what we probably remember before the bans of CFCs was that freon is bad!

But once the bans were in place, a lot of existing equipment were left with CFCs and nobody knew where to put them. Releasing them would mean destroying the ozone. Clever engineers came up with a solution. The CFCs could be chemically bound in common cement, would chemically be altered and not released as harmful CFCs again. Easy solution to a big problem. But the inventors were too ambitious. They wanted to make the factory that would inactivate the CFCs and produce cement in Africa - giving the country an unique technological advantage. Unfortunately, the intention was misunderstood as exploiting a third world country with a western country chemical waste problem. Media had been pounding the message that Freon is bad into our heads - so the activists saw the initiative as exposing the Africans to a directly harmful chemical to humans (which is untrue).

The movement succeeded in closing the African factory initiative before it was completed, moving the solving of the problem back to square one. A paradox; a brilliant solution to pollution was smothered by the most people who most passionately wanted a solution.

I love this story because it shows how good intentions can turn against ourselves if we do not keep an open mind.

Educational Blocks - If it is so amazing, why is it not used by someone?

When I discuss the existence of great unused inventions and the contents of this blog with people I am often met with the statement: "If it is so amazing, why is it not used by someone?" This phrase is so common that it almost seems like a response running on default, like the memes I wrote about earlier.

Where does this instant rejection of the amazing possibility of a breakthrough for mankind come from? If you were drowning, would you not least attempt to reach a floating object? It does not seem to be the case with long term hazards caused by pollution, wasteful energy sources, overproduction, hunger etc. When I attempt to dig in why my (of different backgrounds) debaters are sceptical towards investigating the integrity of claims on great breakthroughs, and I usually get a school/high school quote of sorts. Examples could be "my physics teacher always said engines can never produce more energy than they can consume and that it is simply impossible" or " it is against the laws of science - so I can not be". I was told these things too, and in a discussion they are statements that are hardly open for discussion. When I try to list some of the problems a good invention might meet before it is on the supermarket shelf, the most difficult to believe is the inventions design - not the problems it faces. I do not like conspiracy theories (though this blog might be labeled as one), but is it not scary that individual thoughts can get one tracked like this? Should we curiosity not be allowed to overcome scepticism in the case of need?

In my own opinion I did rather poorly in school until I realized that I was complicating things by taking too many variables into account at the same time when solving an assignment. My teachers, who I respect, did not want my interpretation or creativity so much as they wanted the correct answer. All through my education, up to doctoral level, I have been schooled in searching for answers that fit the mental box called facts. I agree this reality works very well per default - but it may restrain you and me from even accepting the existence of a revolutionary technological breakthrough. And how do you approach that as an inventor? It works, you can show it works, but people deny it because they have been taught I can not exist. If that is the case perhaps technological breakthroughs are left to be investigated by believers who can accept humanity might not know everything, but can hit a lucky strike when trying to reach for the sky.