Reinventing Science - From Journals to Open Science

Michael Nielsen gives a very nice historical overview on the culture of sharing scientific information at his TED presentation in Waterloo.

As also stated here in the blog, the scientist are generally not rewarded by sharing their information openly. This seems to be a main inhibitor for data and ideas reaching their full potential. The systems financing scientists are simply not geared to welcome sharing discoveries openly. Scientists "jobs" are basically to mass produce articles in quantity as it is a demand in many universities - not to let their ideas have sex with others and advance knowledge faster. This is also turned by the Scientific American in an article from October.

One of my favorite references on the failure of the reward system is Daniel Pinks summarizing of 50 years of research on the subject. And the result is deafening: rewards impair the cognitive abilities! Or, a carrot on a stick makes you dumber. 

Nielsen excel in his talk by making a sucker punch to the sceptics when describing how one of the greatest human monuments, The Human Genome Project. This effort would have been an absolute failure had the idea of Open Science not eventually been forced upon the researchers by grant providers. Researchers were simply too busy "doing science" (publishing) to have time to upload genome sequences. These sequences now uploaded and publicly accessible are feeding hundreds of new science projects just by existing.

It takes bravery, especially by young scientists, to openly embrace and promote Open Science (flattered). But we have to if we are to change the rewarding system of scientists so the scientific community (an others) can benefit openly by the research.

And to those who have not read the previous posts on Open Science I answer "no" in advance to the inevitable referring to journals as already embodying Open Science. Peer reviewed journals are not "open" even when offering the "Open Access" option! Open Access is restricted by people having enough finances to publish for everybody to access the publication. And rarely data sets follow a publication. 

Lots of work to be done!

Michael Nielsen on Open Science and his book on the subject Reinventing Science:

Open Source Ecology

Another amazing initiative relating to Open Science popped up on my radar this week.
 Marcin Jakubowski was as hardcore scientist as it gets with a Ph.D. in physics who had the courage of following his heart and redefine his purpose. From scarcity he had to experiment and design his own agricultural tools and machines to succeed in farming. He published his ideas and designs though the internet, attracting supporters for the idea.

Eventually the idea grew into a project, and the project into a purpose they named Open Source Ecology. Here they publish and continue to improve on a fixed set of machines needed to start and improve a sustainable village from scratch. They named this The Global Village Construction Set.

Why is this a really good idea?
Here are my 5 cents:
a) it is a powerful incentive to poor farmers in "third"- and "second"-world countries (and elsewhere) to upgrade and help themselves. Especially considering the combination with micro-loans like Kiva.
b) it gives a cheaper and real alternative to commercial products
c) considering point b) sustainability is a corner stone in the project, and thus incorporated into the design. It does not have to consider profit from gradual improvements, but start at the best and most efficient design.
d) it is a feedback process that allow users to return user knowledge and improve the design.
e) if gives "first"-world farmers a real alternative, who is in a constant race of becoming ever more efficient to scoop a little profit from repaying debt.
f) the idea is community based! Meaning responsibility and ownership of creating tools to sustain the community becomes a public privilege not a private industrial enterprise (but I can be too).
g) the design ideas on the drawing board are by no means just primitive tools (3D scanner, 3D printer, aluminum extractor, CNC circuit mill etc.). The group are serious when they aim at creating a kit that can make people get modern comforts.
h) the idea is to make the machines modular. Simple parts, easy to understand and exchange. This is a huge thing since an item is only good as long as it has spare parts and can be fixed, unlike most modern machines that requires special tools and mechanics - making them useless when placed on a savanna far from infrastructure.


I am proud of people like Jakubowski and his supporters! Especially because he is a scientist! To me they have succeeded in combining heart and mind into what needs to be done. I know "hero" is a strong word, but they are providing what the world really needs, not for fame or money (yes, they ask for volunteering donations). I do not claiming we all should follow this example, but giving it a thought would be healthy.

And you do not need to be a scientist to do a real noticeable difference! The Let's Do It campaign started in Estonia is a perfect example. Cleaning up a country from garbage in one day is certainly possible!  

Links:
Open Source Ecology
Open Source Ecology Wiki
Let's Do It World

Open Access - rich can publish, poor can read

Nature News published an article "US seeks to make science free for all" by Declan Butler explaining how Open Access publishing of scientific journals is marching forward. Actually it is doing so well that US politicians are pushing forward to make it mandatory.

This is, in my opinion, a step forward towards Open Science. But as stated before, there is a large drawback with Open Access (other scientists may have more): rich can publish, but poor can only read. It is very expensive to publish as Open Access, that it is not even an option to many universities, including my own. So the published science is not "free" to all. It is accessible to read by anyone with an Internet, but it is open universally for the authors.

The big trouble is how to publish and read free of charge, and retain the credibility of peer-reviews.

I hope for better platforms in the future.

Further reading
 

Thank you Johnny Chung Lee for The Interactive Whiteboard

Jackpot it becoming more frequent when looking for Open Science. Today I found the TED talk with Johnny Chung Lees hacks for the Wii Remote Controller. Amazing how one man playing around in his laboratory can create revolutionary technology for a percent of professional equipment. But the best part is - he share it! And better yet, according to himself, what fascinates him even more than the actual inventions is how quickly people pick up an invention through the internet and improve it when offered it freely.

So, thank you Johnny Chung Lee for not only being an outstanding inventor, but also allowing your inventions to benefit us all!

If you wish to create $14 dollar steady cams, virtual whiteboards, interactive touch screens, 3D eye wear for graphical contents with material even poor people may afford - go see what is on Lees website.

Johnny Chung Lees project website
TED talk

Tools and further reading

 

Open University, half way to Open Science

Open Science seems to be on the fast track. Several initiatives are now promoting university education for even the poorest in the world (Open University). If you have Internet and speak English, you can join. Distance teaching has been used for a long time in traditional universities, but now professionals specialists in their fields are spending their time and money to educate those who are willing, regardless of background. A neat idea if you believe that bringing education to the uneducated will help calming the world - I do.

I see Open University as one leg inside the traditional universities for the concept of Open Science. I hope that if the universities realize it is possible to convey teaching as an open media, the golden egg, science, may follow faster in the footsteps. In my opinion to the benefit of most, on the contrary to

Links:
Article in New York Times
Article in The Guardian
University of the People
Open Course Ware Consortium
Open University on iTunes

Further reading:

The Back Shed - Open Science in use

Looking for sources of information on initiatives that involved other people I entered The Back Shed. This website is very close to my idea of Open Science in practice. I will try to break down into parts how.

Summary: The Back Shed is a channel for "publishing" how a few windmill enthusiasts building effective windmills, improvements, and expansions, mostly from spare parts. But not only that - they involve others in projects through their website, and allow them to give ideas to solving problems - returning the result on the website.

Economy: The website use Goggles AdSense and thus gives a little project money in return for people using the listed suggestions for windmill parts by Google.

Blue prints: the site offer detailed, step by step instructions how to replicate their results.

Forum: An open forum for discussing various projects and concepts is present.

Control: The site is run and maintained by the group.

Alchemist or Scientists: These are enthusiasts, making improvements to industrial designs as well as from scrap. They supply technical information and prints, but the method is trail and error, not so much scientific. So though they are not green stamped representatives of intellectual property But they do make things work - cheap, easy, and better for anyone it seems.

Interactivity: The linkage to a global idea network is lacking.

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:

WorldWideScience - A Step towards Open Science?

The 22nd of June 2007 the Department of Energy (USA) and The British Library of the United States of America opened the new search portal www.worldwidescience.org which has a Declaration of Intention that moves in the direction of Open Science.

The portal has ambitions of becoming a similar gateway as I suggested in my manifest the 29th July, the need for releasing the holds on Science is needed for a dynamic development. This is clearly also the intent of WorldWideScience:

WorldWideScience.org is the prototype for a global science gateway connecting you to national and international scientific databases. WorldWideScience.org accelerates scientific discovery and progress by providing one-stop searching (see advanced search) of global science sources.

Though I welcome this initiative as a step in the right direction, it is still just a collection of databases, made searchable, containing existing information. It undoubtedly (if used) will bring project partners closer to each other in their field of interest, but not necessarily improve or accelerate scientific discovery in its present form.

I wish their project the best and hope to see it develop.

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.