On Monday 1 September we had a one day workshop in Southampton discussing the issues that surround ‘Open Science’. This was very free form and informal and I had the explicit aim of getting a range of people with different perspectives into the room to discuss a wide range of issues, including tool development, the social and career structure issues, as well as ideas about standards and finally, what concrete actions could actually be taken. You can find live blogging and other commentary in the associated Friendfeed room and information on who attended as well as links to many of the presentations on the conference wiki.

Broadly speaking the day was divided into three chunks, the first was focussed on tools and services and included presentations on MyExperiment, Mendeley, Chemtools, and Inkspot Science. Branwen Hide of Research Information Network has written more on this part. Given that the room contained more than the usual suspects the conversation focussed on usability and interfaces rather than technical aspects although there was a fair bit of that as well.

The second portion of the day revolved more around social challenges and issues. Richard Grant presented his experience of blogging on an official university sanctioned site and the value of that for both outreach and education. One point he made was that the ‘lack of adoption problem’ seen in science just doesn’t seem to exist in the humanities. Perhaps this is because scientists don’t generally see ‘writing’ as a valuable thing in its own right. Certainly there is a preponderance of scientists who happen also to see themselves as writers on Nature Network.

Jennifer Rohn followed on from Richard, and objected to my characterising her presentation as “the skeptic’s view”. A more accurate characterisation would have been “I’d love to be open but at the moment I can’t: This is what has to change to make it work”. She presented a great summary of the proble, particularly from the biological scientist’s point of view as well as potential solutions. Essentially the problem is that of the ‘Minimum Publishable Unit’ or research quantum as well as what ‘counts’ as publication. Her main point was that for people to be prepared to publish material that falls short of a full paper they need to get some proportional credit for that. This folds closely into the discussion of what can be cited and what should be cited in particular contexts. I have used the phrase ‘data sized peg into a paper shaped hole’ to describe this in the past.

After lunch Liz Lyon from UKOLN talked about curation and long term archival storage which lead into an interesting discussion about the archiving of blogs and other material. Is it worth keeping? One answer to this was to look at the real interest today in diaries from the second world war and earlier from ‘normal people’. You don’t necessarily need to be a great scientist, or even a great blogger, for the material to be of potential interest to historians in 50-100 years time. But doing this properly is hard - in the same way that maintaining and indexing data is hard. Disparate sites, file formats, places of storage, and in the end whose blog is it actually? Particularly if you are blogging for, or recording work done at, a research institution.

The final session was about standards or ‘brands’. Yaroslav Nikolaev talked about semantic representations of experiments. While important it was probably a shame in the end we did this at the end of the day because it would have been helpful to get more of the non-techie people into that discussion to iron out both the communication issues around semantic web as well as describing the real potential benefits. This remains a serious gap - the experimental scientists who could really use semantic tools don’t really get the point, and the people developing the tools don’t communicate well what the benefits are, or in some cases (not all I hasten to add!) actually build the tools the experimentalists want.

I talked about the possibility of a ‘certificate’ or standard for Open Science, and the idea of an organisation to police this. It would be safe to say that, while people agreed that clear definitions would be hepful, the enhusiasm level for a standards organisation was pretty much zero. There are more fundamental issues of actually building up enough examples of good practice, and working towards identifying best practice in open science, that need to be dealt with before we can really talk about standards.

On the other hand the idea of ‘the fully supported’ paper got immediate and enthusiastic support. The idea here is deceptively simple, and has been discussed elsewhere; simply that all the relevant supporting information for a paper (data, detailed methodology, software tools, parameters, database versions etc. as well as access to required materials at reasonable cost) should be available for any published paper. The challenge here lies in actually recording experiments in such a way that this information can be provided. But if all of the record is available in this form then it can be made available whenever the researcher chooses. Thus by providing the tools that enable the fully supported paper you are also providing tools that enable open science.

Finally we discussed what we could actually do: Jean-Claude Bradley discussed the idea of an Open Notebook Science challenge to raise the profile of ONS (this is now setup - more on this to follow). Essentially a competition type approach where individuals or groups can contribute to a larger scientific problem by collecting data - where the teams get judged on how well they describe what they have done and how quickly they make it available.

The most specific action proposed was to draft a ‘Letter to Nature’ proposing the idea of the fully supported paper as a submission standard. The idea would be to get a large number of high profile signatories on a document which describes  a concrete step by step plan to work towards the final goal, and to send that as correspondence to a high profile journal. I have been having some discussions about how to frame such a document and hope to be getting a draft up for discussion reasonably soon.

Overall there was much enthusiasm for things Open and a sense that many elements of the puzzle are falling into place. What is missing is effective coordinated action, communication across the whole community of interested and sympathetic scientsts, and critically the high profile success stories that will start to shift opinion. These ought to, in my opinion, be the targets for the next 6-12 months.

Posted: October 1st, 2008 under Meeting, open notebook science, open research, open sciece, open science, osci-protocol.
Comments: 4

So a bit of a first for me. I can vaguely claim to have contributed to two things into the print version of Nature this week. Strictly speaking my involvement in the first, the ‘From the Blogosphere‘ piece on the Science Blogging Challenge, was really restricted to discussing the idea (originally from Richard Grant I believe) and now a bit of cheerleading and ultimately some judging. The second item though I can claim some credit for in as much as it is a Q&A with myself and Jean-Claude Bradley that was done when we visited Nature Publishing Group in London a few weeks back.

It is great that a journal like Nature views the ideas of data publication, open notebook science, and open science in general as worthy of featuring. This is not an isolated instance either, as we can point to the good work of the Web Publishing Group, in developing useful resources such as Nature Precedings, as well as previous features in the print edition such as the Horizons article (there is also another version on Nature Precedings) written by Peter Murray-Rust. One thing I have heard said many times in recent months is that while people who advocate open science may not agree with everything NPG with respect to copyright and access, people are impressed and encouraged by the degree of engagement that they maintain with the community.

I did however just want to clarify one or two of the things I apparently said. I am not claiming that I didn’t say those things - the interview was recorded after all - but just that on paper they don’t really quite match what I think I meant to say. Quoting from the article:

CN-Most publishers regard what we do as the equivalent of presenting at a conference, or a preprint. That hasn’t been tested across a wide range of publishers, and there’s at least one — the American Chemical Society — that doesn’t allow prepublication in any form whatsoever.

That sounds a little more extreme than what I meant to say - there are a number of publishers that don’t allow submission of material that has appeared online as a pre-print and the ACS has said that they regard online publication as equivalent to a pre-print. I don’t have any particular sympathy for the ACS but I think they probably do allow publication of material that was presented at ACS conferences.

CN-Open notebooks are practical but tough at the moment. My feeling is that the tools are not yet easy enough to use. But I would say that a larger proportion of people will be publishing electronically and openly in ten years.

Here I think what I said is too conservative on one point and possibly not conservative enough on the other. I did put my neck out and say that I think the majority of scientists will be using electronic lab notebooks of one sort or another in ten years. Funder data sharing policies will drive a much greater volume of material online post publication (hopefully with higher quality description) and this may become the majority of all research data. I think that more people will be making more material available openly as it is produced as well but I doubt that this will be a majority of people in ten years - I hope for a sizeable and significant minority and that’s what we will continue to work towards.

Posted: September 18th, 2008 under open data, open notebook science, open research, open science.
Comments: 3

So Michael Nielsen, one morning at breakfast at Scifoo asked one of those questions which never has a short answer; ‘So how did you get into this open science thing?’ and I realised that although I have told the story to many people I haven’t ever written it down. Perhaps this is a meme worth exploring more generally but I thought others might be interested in my story, partly because it illustrates how funding drives scientists, and partly because it shows how the combination of opportunism and serendipity can make for successful bedfellows.

In late 2004 I was spending a lot of my time on the management of a large collaborative research project and had had a run of my own grant proposals rejected. I had a student interested in doing a PhD but no direct access to funds to support the consumables cost of the proposed project. Jeremy Frey had been on at me for a while to look at implementing the electronic lab notebook system that he had lead the development of and at the critical moment he pointed out to me a special call from the BBSRC for small projects to prototype, develop, or implement e-science technologies in the biological sciences. It was a light touch review process and a relatively short application. More to the point it was a way of funding some consumables.

So the grant was written. I wrote the majority of it, which makes somewhat interesting reading in retrospect. I didn’t really know what I was talking about at the time (which seems to be a theme with my successful grants). The original plan was to use the existing, fully semantic, rdf backed electronic lab notebook and develop models for use in a standard biochemistry lab. We would then develop systems to enable a relational database to be extracted from the rdf representation and present this on the web.

The grant was successful but the start was delayed due to shenanigans over the studentship that was going to support the grant and the movement of some of the large project to another institution with one of the investigators. Partly due to the resulting mess I applied for the job I ultimately accepted at RAL and after some negotiation organised an 80:20 split between RAL and Southampton.

By the time we had a student in place and had got the grant started it was clear that the existing semantic ELN was not in a state that would enable us to implement new models for our experiments. However at this stage there was a blog system that had been developed in Jeremy’s group and it was thought it would be an interesting experiment to use this as a notebook. This would be almost the precise opposite of the rdf backed ELN. Looking back at it now I would describe it as taking the opportunity to look at a Web 2.0 approach to the notebook as compared to a Web 3.0 approach but bear in mind that at the time I had little or no idea of what these terms meant, let alone the care with which they need to be used.

The blog based system was great for me as it meant I could follow the student’s work online and doing this I gradually became aware of blogs in general and the use of feed readers. The RSS feed of the LaBLog was a great help as it made following the details of experiments remotely straightforward. This was important as by now I was spending three or four days a week at RAL while the student was based in Southampton. As we started to use the blog, at first in a very naïve way we found problems and issues which ultimately led to us thinking about and designing the organisational approach I have written about elsewhere [1, 2]. By this stage I had started to look at other services online and was playing around with OpenWetWare and a few other services, becoming vaguely aware of Creative Commons licenses and getting a grip on the Web 2.0 versus Web 3.0 debate.

To implement our newly designed approach to organising the LaBLog we decided the student would start afresh with a clean slate in a new blog. By this stage I was playing with using the blog for other things and had started to discover that there were issues that meant the ID authentication we were using didn’t always work through the RAL firewall. I ended up having complicated VPN setups, particularly working from home, where I couldn’t log on to the blog and I have my email online at the same time. This, obviously, was a pain and as we were moving to a new blog which could have new security settings I said, ‘stuff it, let’s just make it completely visible and be done with it’.

So there you go. The critical decision to move to an Open Notebook status was taken as the result of a firewall. So serendipity, or at least the effect of outside pressures, was what made it happen.  I would like to say it was a carefully thought out philosophical decision but, although the fact that I was aware of the open access movement, creative commons, OpenWetWare, and others no doubt prepared the background that led me to think down that route, it was essentially the result of frustration.

So, so far, opportunism and serendipity, which brings us back to opportunism again, or at least seizing an opportunity. Having made the decision to ‘go open’ two things clicked in my mind. Firstly the fact that this was rather radical. Secondly, the fact that all of these Web 2.0 tools combined with an open approach could lead to a marked improvement in the efficiency of collaborative science, a kind of ‘Science 2.0’ [yes, I know, don’t laugh, this would have been around March 2007]. Here was an opportunity to get my name on a really novel and revolutionary concept! A quick Google search revealed that, funnily enough, I wasn’t the first person to think of this (yes! I’d been scooped!), but more importantly it led to what I think ought to be three of the Standard Works of Open Science, Bill Hooker’s three part series on Open Science at 3 Quarks Daily [1, 2, 3], Jean-Claude Bradley’s presentation on Open Notebook Science at Nature Precedings (and the associated original blog post coining the term), and Deepak Singh’s talk on Open Science at Ignite Seattle. From there I was inspired to seize the opportunity, get a blog of my own, and get involved. The rest of my story story, so far, is more or less available online here and via the usual sources.

Which leads me to ask. What got you involved in the ‘open’ movement? What, for you, were the ‘primary texts’ of open science and open research? There is a value in recording this, or at least our memories of it, for ourselves, to learn from our mistakes and perhaps discern the direction going forward. Perhaps it isn’t even too self serving to think of it as history in the making. Or perhaps, more in line with our own aims as ‘open scientists’, that we would be doing a poor job if we didn’t record what brought us to where we are and what is influencing our thinking going forward. I think the blogosphere does a pretty good job of the latter, but perhaps a little more recording of the former would be helpful.

Posted: August 22nd, 2008 under history, open notebook science, open research, open science, scifoo, serendipity.
Comments: 3

An update on the Workshop that I announced previously. We have a number of people confirmed to come down and I need to start firming up numbers. I will be emailing a few people over the weekend so sorry if you get this via more than one route. The plan of attack remains as follows:

Meet on evening of Sunday 31 August in Southampton, most likely at a bar/restaurant near the University to coordinate/organise the details of sessions.

Commence on Monday at ~9:30 and finish around 4:30pm (with the option of discussion going into the evening) with three or four sessions over the course of the day broadly divided into the areas of tools, social issues, and policy. We have people interested and expert in all of these areas coming so we should be able to to have a good discussion. The object is to keep it very informal but to keep the discussion productive. Numbers are likely to be around 15-20 people. For those not lucky enough to be in the area we will aim to record and stream the sessions, probably using a combination of dimdim, mogulus, and slideshare. Some of these may require you to be signed into our session so if you are interested drop me a line at the account below.

To register for the meeting please send me an email to my gmail account (cameronneylon). To avoid any potential confusion, even if you have emailed me in the past week or so about this please email again so that I have a comprehensive list in one place. I will get back to you with a request via PayPal for £15 to cover coffees and lunch for the day (so if you have a PayPal account you want to use please send the email from that address). If there is a problem with the cost please state so in your email and we will see what we can do. We can suggest options for accomodation but will ask you to sort it out for yourself.

I have set up a wiki to discuss the workshop which is currently completely open access. If I see spam or hacking problems I will close it down to members only (so it would be helpful if you could create an account) but hopefully it might last a few weeks in the open form. Please add your name and any relevant details you are happy to give out to the Attendees page and add any presentations or demos you would be interested in giving, or would be interested in hearing about, on the Programme suggestion page.

Posted: August 15th, 2008 under LaBLog, data commons, ethics, myexperiment, open data, open notebook science, open science, open-science-charter, osci-protocol, workshop.
Comments: none

I’m in Barcelona at a satellite meeting of the EuroScience Open Forum organised by Science Commons and a number of their partners.  Today is when most of the meeting will be with forums on ‘Open Access Today’, ‘Moving OA to the Scientific Enterprise:Data, materials, software’, ‘Open access in the the knowledge network’, and ‘Open society, open science: Principle and lessons from OA’. There is also a keynote from Carlos Morais-Pires of the European Commission and the lineup for the panels is very impressive.

Last night was an introduction and social kickoff as well. James Boyle (Duke Law School, Chair of board of directors of Creative Commons, Founder of Science commons) gave a wonderful talk (40 minutes, no slides, barely taking breath) where his central theme was the relationship between where we are today with open science and where international computer networks were in 1992. He likened making the case for open science today with that of people suggesting in 1992 that the networks would benefit from being made freely accessible, freely useable, and based on open standards. The fears that people have today of good information being lost in a deluge of dross, of their being large quantities of nonsense, and nonsense from people with an agenda, can to a certain extent be balanced against the idea that to put it crudely, that Google works. As James put it (not quite a direct quote) ‘You need to reconcile two statements; both true. 1) 99% of all material on the web is incorrect, badly written, and partial. 2) You probably  haven’t opened an encylopedia as a reference in ten year.

James gave two further examples, one being the availability of legal data in the US. Despite the fact that none of this is copyrightable in the US there are thriving businesses based on it. The second, which I found compelling, for reasons that Peter Murray-Rust has described in some detail. Weather data in the US is free. In a recent attempt to get long term weather data a research effort was charged on the order of $1500, the cost of the DVDs that would be needed to ship the data, for all existing US weather data. By comparison a single German state wanted millions for theirs. The consequence of this was that the European data didn’t go into the modelling. James made the point that while the European return on investment for weather data was a respectable nine-fold, that for the US (where they are giving it away remember) was 32 times. To me though the really compelling part of this argument is if that data is not made available we run the risk of being underwater in twenty years with nothing to eat. This particular case is not about money, it is potentially about survival.

Finally - and this you will not be surprised was the bit I most liked - he went on to issue a call to arms to get on and start building this thing that we might call the data commons. The time has come to actually sit down and start to take these things forward, to start solving the issues of reward structures, of identifying business models, and to build the tools and standards to make this happen. That, he said was the job for today. I am looking forward to it.

I will attempt to do some updates via twitter/friendfeed (cameronneylon on both) but I don’t know how well that will work. I don’t have a roaming data tariff and the charges in Europe are a killer so it may be a bit sparse.

Posted: July 17th, 2008 under data commons, data formats, economics, ethics, linking papers to open data, ontologies, open access, open access for the developing world, open data, open notebook science, open science.
Comments: none

Regular readers will know I am a great believer in the potential of Web2.0 tools to enable rapid aggregation of loose networks of collaborators to solve a particular problem and the possibilities of using this approach to do science better, faster, and more efficiently. The reason why we haven’t had great successes on this thus far is fundamentally down to the size of the network we have in place and the bias in the expertise of that network towards specific areas. There is a strong bioinformatics/IT bias in the people interested in these tools and this plays out in a number of fields from the people on Friendfeed, to the relative frequency of commenting on PLoS Computational Biology versus PLoS ONE.

Putting these two together one obvious solution is to find a problem that is well suited to the people who are around, may be of interest to them, and is also quite useful to solve. I think I may have found such a problem.

The Illumina next generation sequencing platform developed originally by Solexa is the latest kid on the block as far as the systems that have reached the market. I spent a good part of today talking about how the analysis pipeline for this system could be improved. But one thing that came out as an issue is that no-one seems to have published  detailed analysis of the types of errors that are generated experimentally by this system. Illumina probably have done this analysis in some form but have better things to do than write it up.

The Solexa system is based on sequencing by synthesis. A population of DNA molecules, all amplified from the same single molecule, is immobilised on a surface. A new strand of DNA is added, one base at a time. In the Solexa system each base has a different fluorescent marker on it plus a blocking reagent. After the base is added, and the colour read, the blocker is removed and the next base can be added. More details can be found on the genographia wiki. There are two major sources of error here. Firstly, for a proportion of each sample, the base is not added successfully. This means in the next round, that part of the sample may generate a readout for the previous base. Secondly the blocker may fail, leading to the addition of two bases, causing a similar problem but in reverse. As the cycles proceed the ends of each DNA strand in the sample get increasingly out of phase making it harder and harder to tell which is the correct signal.

These error rates are probably dependent both on the identity of the base being added and the identity of the previous base. It may also be related to the number of cycles that have been carried out. There is also the possibility that the sample DNA has errors in it due to the amplification process though these are likely to be close to insignificant. However there is no data on these error rates available. Simple you might think to get some of the raw data and do the analysis – fit the sequence of raw intensity data to a model where the parameters are error rates for each base.

Well we know that the availability of data makes re-processing possible and we further believe in the power of the social network. And I know that a lot of you guys are good at this kind of analysis, and might be interested in having a play with some of the raw data. It could also be a good paper – Nature Biotech/Nature Methods perhaps and I am prepared to bet it would get an interesting editorial writeup on the process as well. I don’t really have the skills to do the work but if others out there are interested then I am happy to coordinate. This could all be done, in the wild, out in the open and I think that would be a brilliant demonstration of the possibilities.

Oh, the data? We’ve got access to the raw and corrected spot intensities and the base calls from a single ‘tile’ of the phiX174 control lane for a run from the 1000 Genomes Project which can be found at http://sgenomics.org/phix174.tar.gz courtesy of Nava Whiteford from the Sanger Centre. If you’re interested in the final product you can see some of the final read data being produced here.

What I had in mind was taking the called sequence, align onto phiX174 so we know the ‘true’ sequence. Then use that sequence plus a model with error rates to parameterise those error rates. Perhaps there is a better way to approach the problem? There are a series of relatively simple error models that could be tried and if the error rates can be defined then it will enable a really significant increase in both the quality and quantity of data that can be determined by these machines. I figure splitting the job up into a few small groups working on different models, putting the whole thing up on google code with a wiki there to coordinate and capture other issues as we go forward. Anybody up for it (and got the time)?

Posted: May 28th, 2008 under Collaboration, open data, open notebook science, open science.
Comments: 4

A story of two major retractions from a well known research group has been getting a lot of play over the last few days with a News Feature (1) and Editorial (2) in the 15 May edition of Nature. The story turns on claim that Homme Hellinga’s group was able to convert the E. coli ribose binding protein into a Triose phosphate isomerase (TIM) using a computational design strategy. Two papers on the work appeared, one in Science (3) and one in J Mol Biol (4). However another group, having obtained plasmids for the designed enzymes, could not reproduce the claimed activity. After many months of work the group established that the supposed activity appeared to that of the bacteria’s native TIM and not that of the designed enzyme. The paper’s were retracted and Hellinga went on to accuse the graduate student who did the work of fabricating the results, a charge of which she was completely cleared.

Much of the heat the story is generating is about the characters involved and possible misconduct of various players, but that’s not what I want to cover here. My concern is about how much time, effort, and tears could have been saved if all the relevant raw data was made available in the first place. Demonstrating a new enzymatic activity is very difficult work. It is absolutely critical to rigorously exclude the possibility of any contaminating activity and in practice this is virtually impossible to guarantee. Therefore a negative control experiment is very important. It appears that this control experiment was carried out, but possibly only once, against a background of significant variability in the results. All of this lead to another group wasting on the order of twelve months trying to replicate these results. Well, not wasting, but correcting the record, arguably a very important activity, but one for which they will get little credit in any meaningful sense (an issue for another post and mentioned by Noam Harel in a comment at the News Feature online).

So what might have happened if the original raw data were available? Would it have prevented the publication of the papers in the first place? It’s very hard to tell. The referees were apparently convinced by the quality of the data. But if this was ‘typical data’ (using the special scientific meaning of typical vis ‘the best we’ve got’) and the referees had seen the raw data with greater variability then maybe they would have wanted to see more or better controls; perhaps not. Certainly if the raw data were available the second group would have realised much sooner that something was wrong.

And this is a story we see over and over again. The selective publication of results without reference to the full set of data; a slight shortcut taken or potential issues with the data somewhere that is not revealed to referees or to the readers of the paper; other groups spending months or years attempting to replicate results or simply use a method described by another group. And in the meantime graduate students and postdocs get burnt on the pyre of scientific ‘progress’ discovering that something isn’t reproducible.

The Nature editorial is subtitled ‘Retracted papers require a thorough explanation of what went wrong in the experiments’. In my view this goes nowhere near far enough. There is no longer any excuse for not providing all the raw and processed data as part of the supplementary information for published papers. Even in the form of scanned lab book pages this could have made a big difference in this case, immediately indicating the degree of variability and the purity of the proteins. Many may say that this is too much effort, that the data cannot be found. But if this is the case then serious questions need to be asked about the publication of the work. Publishers also need to play a role by providing more flexible and better indexed facilities for supplementary information, and making sure they are indexed by search engines.

Some of us go much further than this, and believe that making the raw data immediately available is a better way to do science. Certainly in this case it might have reduced the pressure to rush to publish, might have forced a more open and more thorough scrutiny of the underlying data. This kind of radical openness is not for everyone perhaps but it should be less prone to gaffes of the sort described here. I know I can have more faith in the work of my group where I can put my fingers on the raw data and check through the detail. We are still going through the process of implementing this move to complete (or as complete as we can be) openness and its not easy. But it helps.

Science has moved on from the days where the paper could only contain what would fit on the printed pages. It has moved on from the days when an informal circle of contacts would tell you which group’s work was repeatable and which was not. The pressures are high and potential for career disaster probably higher. In this world the reliability and completeness of the scientific record is crucial. Yes there are technical difficulties in making it all available. Yes it takes effort, and yes it will involve more work, and possibly less papers. But the only thing that ultimately can really be relied on is the raw data (putting aside deliberate fraud). If the raw data doesn’t form a central part of the scientific record then we perhaps need to start asking whether the usefulness of that record in its current form is starting to run out.

1. Editorial Nature 453, 258 (2008)
2. Wenner M. Nature 453, 271-275 (2008)
3. Dwyer, M. A. , Looger, L. L. & Hellinga, H. W. Science 304, 1967–1971 (2004).
4. Allert, M. , Dwyer, M. A. & Hellinga, H. W. J. Mol. Biol. 366, 945–953 (2007).

Posted: May 16th, 2008 under open notebook science, publishing, raw data.
Comments: 3

One of the strong messages that came back from the workshop we held at the BioSysBio meeting was that protocols and standards of behaviour were something that people would appreciate having available. There are many potential issues that are raised by the idea of a ‘charter’ or ‘protocol’ for open science but these are definitely things that are worth talking about. I thought I would through a few ideas out and see where they go. There are some potentially serious contradictions to be worked through. Read more »

Posted: April 29th, 2008 under Uncategorized, open data, open notebook science, open science, osci-protocol.
Comments: 2

I am thinking about how to present the case for Open Science, Open Notebook Science, and Open Data at Science in the 21^st Century, the meeting being organised by Sabine Hossenfelder and Michael Nielsen at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. I’ve put up a draft abstract and as you might guess from this I wanted to make an economic case that the waste of resources, both human and monetary is not something that is sustainable for the future. Here I want to rehearse that argument a bit further as well as explore the business case that could be presented to Google/Gates Foundation as a package that would include the development of the Science Exchange ideas that I blogged about last week. Read more »

Posted: April 27th, 2008 under economics, open data, open notebook science, open science, science21.
Comments: 3

Image via Wikipedia

This has taken me longer than expected to write up. Julius Lucks, John Cumbers, and myself lead a workshop on Open Science on Monday 21^st at the BioSysBio meeting at Imperial College London.  I had hoped to record screencast, audio, and possibly video as well but in the end the laptop I am working off couldn’t cope with both running the projector and Camtasia at the same time with reasonable response rates (its a long story but in theory I get my ‘proper’ laptop back tomorrow so hopefully better luck next time). We had somewhere between 25 and 35 people throughout most of the workshop and the feedback was all pretty positive. What I found particularly exciting was that, although the usual issues of scooping, attribution, and the general dishonestly of the scientific community were raised, they were only in passing, with a lot more of the discussion focussing on practical issues. Read more »

Posted: April 23rd, 2008 under Open Science PSB09, biosysbio2008, ethics, identity, open notebook science, open science, open-science-charter, osci-protocol, psb2009, trust, workshop.
Comments: 1