Economic Logic of Open Science

In my search for fellow thinkers in the line of Open Science I might have hit the jackpot with Professor Paul A. David at Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

Prof. David apparently has been working with the concept of Open Science, not as an invention, but as a real factor in the scientific and commercial sphere of economics. From what I can read in his references the concept is hatched around 1998. The report brings forth (in Davids words) similar arguments in how Open Science works in favor of both scientific/commercial interests.

The paper has many eloquently phrased points, and I will not give them here except one on intellectual property rights: "...it can be said that a good bit of intellectual ingenuity and entrepreneurial energy is being directed towards the goal of neutralizing the achievements of information scientists and engineers by creating new legally sanctioned monopolies."

The Economic Logic of "Open Science" and the Balance between Private Property Rights and the Public Domain in Scientific Data and Information. SIEPR Discussion Paper No. 02-30, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

Further reading:

Sterling Denmark - but why the biofules?

One of the machines with greatest potential for supplying electrical power is the 200 year old invention of the Sterling Engine. It is basically a closed bicycle pump that moves a piston, turning a wheel or generator, when being heated or cooled. The clever part is that it is one of the engines that can work at moderate temperatures and make it into power. And another attempt of putting it to use is made in Denmark.

Stirling Denmark has announced the launch of their working Sterling Engine for biofuel producing an impressive 9 kW and 35 kW of power. The 9 kW model is however not for purchase before 2009. Cogratulations to the inventors who spent 15 years on making a commercial model! I sincerely hope you will succeed in selling it!

At first I was wondering why someone would use biofuels to power a Sterling engine when other cheaper options were available (sun, ground heat, composting, and potentially cooling sources as well...). There are no doubt technical reasons to the choice, but putting things in to context, biofuels do make sense. Biofuel is a hot new buzz-word that politicians love, and love to throw funding at. And scientists must adapt the science to what a handful of people with the money think are important. Biofuels currently seems to be the transition phase from fossil fuels to the better existing technologies (at continental pace), allowing a dilution of the fossil fuels into something renewable.

I also noticed in the product synopsis on Sterling Denmark’s website that the product description had a clever "Designed for biofuels etc." It is probably clever not to state too much of the actual potential of a working Sterling Engine in producing electricity from various sources to avoid too hard opposition. Clever, very clever Sterling Denmark! Keep going.

Economical Blocks - Tiny Steps Max the Income

When you look at your coffee machine and wonder why it is spending energy to keep the coffee warm, instead of just entering a thermo canister directly, one may wonder what went wrong in the evolution. Actually, we (the consumers) can already buy a better model that waste less energy (and undrinkable coffee), but do not buy it, or do not see it in the shop.

It is painfully common to find clever designs on the shelves, or abroad, but only to see them disappear again next year, or never reach Europe. Another ridiculously simple and ingenious design by the Japanese company Toto is the combination of a water tap on the cistern of a toilet. Beautifully, the space of a sink is taken away, the main water line and the cistern is even better separated, and you save about a deciliter of water (if you wash hands) every time a person flushes. The catch? You can't buy it if you are not living in Asia or US!

So why do we as consumers invest fortunes in cappuccino machines, but leave the strangely intelligent design (not to confuse with fancy design by the same name)? I have come to the belief that xenophobia could be part of the answer - better take the safe choice (my wife strongly opposes me for not doing the latter).This off course is not very progressive in an evolutionary process.

Engineers still allow heat conducting pot handles in the 21st century, apparently ignoring common sense. I am not an engineer, so I hope the otherwise (assumingly) bright engineers parry orders rather than try to push the limit in their work.

So lastly, but most importantly, I think it could distill down to the mindset that if you can produce infinite variations on the same design until the demand for something better is too great you release the next model; it will maximize the company income. We all know Microsofts bad rumor of fixing deliberate program bugs. It is a logical capitalist approach, and not wrong for the dominating market powers. A tiny step ("now with enzyme X", "upgrade 2.3.4.1", "innovative design") keeps you buying the same product, because you know it will do the same (at least), but a totally different approach (and perhaps better) to solving your daily needs, gets less room in the consumers home.