I’m aware I’ve been trailing this idea around for sometime now but its been difficult to pin down due to issues with room bookings. However I’m just going to go ahead and if we end up meeting in a local bar then so be it! If Southampton becomes too difficult I might organise to have it at RAL instead but Southampton is more convenient in many ways.
Science Blogging 2008: London will be held on August 30 at the Royal Institution and as a number of people are coming to that it seemed a good opportunity to get a few more people together to have a get together and discuss how we might move things forward. This now turns out to be one of a series of such workshops following on from Collaborating for the future of open science, organised by Science Commons as a satellite meeting of EuroScience Open Forum in Barcelona next month, BioBarCamp/Scifoo from 5-10 August and a possible Open Science Workshop at Stanford on Monday 11 August, as well as the Open Science Workshop in Hawaii (can’t let the bioinformaticians have all the good conference sites to themselves!) at the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.
For the Southampton meeting I would propose that we essentially look at having four themed sessions: Tools, Data standards, Policy/Funding, and Projects. Within this we adopt an unconference style where we decide who speaks based on who is there and want to present something. My ideas is essentially to meet on the Sunday evening at a local hostelry to discuss and organise the specifics of the program for Monday. On the Monday we spend the day with presentations and leave plenty of room for discussion. People can leave in the afternoon, or hang around into the evening for further discussion. We have absolutely zero, zilch, nada funding available so I will be asking for a contribution (to be finalised later but probably £10-15 each) to cover coffee/tea and lunch on the Monday.
Science commons and other are organising a workshop on Open Science issues as a satellite meeting of the European Science Open Forum meeting in July. This is pitched as an opportunity to discuss issues around policy, funding, and social issues with an impact on the ‘Open Research Agenda’. In preparation for that meeting I wanted to continue to explore some of the conflicts that arise between wanting to make data freely available as soon as possible and the need to protect the interests of the researchers that have generated data and (perhaps) have a right to the benefits of exploiting that data.
John Cumbers proposed the idea of a ‘Protocol’ for open science that included the idea of a ‘use embargo’; the idea that when data is initially made available, no-one else should work on it for a specified period of time. I proposed more generally that people could ask that people leave data alone for any particular period of time, but that there ought to be an absolute limit on this type of embargo to prevent data being tied up. These kinds of ideas revolve around the need to forge community norms – standards of behaviour that are expected, and to some extent enforced, by a community. The problem is that these need to evolve naturally, rather than be imposed by committee. If there isn’t community buy in then proposed standards have no teeth.
An alternative approach to solving the problem is to adopt some sort ‘license’. A legal or contractual framework that creates obligation about how data can be used and re-used. This could impose embargoes of the type that John suggested, perhaps as flexible clauses in the license. One could imagine an ‘Open data – six month analysis embargo’ license. This is attractive because it apparently gives you control over what is done with your data while also allowing you to make it freely available. This is why people who first come to the table with an interest in sharing content always start with CC-BY-NC. They want everyone to have their content, but not to make money out of it. It is only later that people realise what other effects this restriction can have.
I had rejected the licensing approach because I thought it could only work in a walled garden, something which goes against my view of what open data is about. More recently John Wilbanks has written some wonderfully clear posts on the nature of the public domain, and the place of data in it, that make clear that it can’t even work in a walled garden. Because data is in the public domain, no contractual arrangement can protect your ability to exploit that data, it can only give you a legal right to punish someone who does something you haven’t agreed to. This has important consequences for the idea of Open Science licences and standards.
If we argue as an ‘Open Science Movement’ that data is in and must remain in the public domain then, if we believe this is in the common good, we should also argue for the widest possible interpretation of what is data. The results of an experiment, regardless of how clever its design might be, are a ‘fact of nature’, and therefore in the public domain (although not necessarily publically available). Therefore if any person has access to that data theycan do whatever the like with it as long as they are not bound by a contractual arrangement. If someone breaks a contractual arrangement and makes the data freely available there is no way you can get that data back. You can punish the person who made it available if they broke a contract with you. But you can’t recover the data. The only way you can protect the right to exploit data is by keeping it secret. The is entirely different to creative content where if someone ignores or breaks licence terms then you can legally recover the content from anyone that has obtained it.
Why does this matter to the Open Science movement? Aren’t we all about making the data available for people to do whatever anyway? It matters because you can’t place any legal limitations on what people do with data you make available. You can’t put something up and say ‘you can only use this for X’ or ‘you can only use it after six months’ or even ‘you must attribute this data’. Even in a walled garden, once there is one hole, the entire edifice is gone. The only way we can protect the rights of those who generate data to benefit from exploiting it is through the hard work of developing and enforcing community norms that provide clear guidelines on what can be done. It’s that or simply keep the data secret.
What is important is that we are clear about this distinction between legal and ethical protections. We must not tell people that their data can be protected because essentially they can’t. And this is a real challenge to the ethos of open data because it means that our only absolutely reliable method for protecting people is by hiding data. Strong community norms will, and do, help but there is a need to be careful about how we encourage people to put data out there. And we need to be very strong in condemning people who do the ‘wrong’ thing. Which is why a discussion on what we believe is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ behaviour is incredibly important. I hope that discussion kicks off in Barcelona and continues globally over the next few months. I know that not everyone can make the various meetings that are going on - but between them and the blogosphere and the ‘streamosphere‘ we have the tools, the expertise, and hopefully the will, to figure these things out.
Following on from the discussion a few weeks back kicked off by Shirley at One Big Lab and continued here I’ve been thinking about how to actually turn what was a throwaway comment into reality:
What is being generated here is new science, and science isn’t paid for per se. The resources that generate science are supported by governments, charities, and industry but the actual production of science is not supported. The truly radical approach to this would be to turn the system on its head. Don’t fund the universities to do science, fund the journals to buy science; then the system would reward increased efficiency.
There is a problem at the core of this. For someone to pay for access to the results, there has to be a monetary benefit to them. This may be through increased efficiency of their research funding but that’s a rather vague benefit. For a serious charitable or commercial funder there has to be the potential to either make money, or at least see that the enterprise could become self sufficient. But surely this means monetizing the data somehow? Which would require restrictive licences, which is not at the end what we’re about.
The other story of the week has been the, in the end very useful, kerfuffle caused by ChemSpider moving to a CC-BY-SA licence, and the confusion that has been revealed regarding data, licencing, and the public domain. John Wilbanks, whose comments on the ChemSpider licence, sparked the discussion has written two posts [1, 2] which I found illuminating and have made things much clearer for me. His point is that data naturally belongs in the public domain and that the public domain and the freedom of the data itself needs to be protected from erosion, both legal, and conceptual that could be caused by our obsession with licences. What does this mean for making an effective data commons, and the Science Exchange that could arise from it, financially viable? Read more »
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 »
This has taken me longer than expected to write up. Julius Lucks, John Cumbers, and myself lead a workshop on Open Science on Monday 21st 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 »
As part of the BioSysBio meeting being held in London 20-22 of April, Mattias Rantalainen kindly asked me to contribute to a workshop on Open Science being held on the Wednesday. A number of OpenWetWare people including Julius Lucks and John Cumbers have agreed to come on board to help. You can see the draft abstract which is up at OpenWetWare. If you are the meeting do come along either to cheer us along in our quest to enthuse the next generation of scientists about Open Stuff or to argue with us about the details of how to do it. I wanted to flag two things up here. One is that we propose to start thrashing out a ‘Protocol for Open Science’; a charter of rights and responsibilities that we hope we can agree as a community to adopt as a standard, or perhaps set of standards.
I don’t imagine this will be an easy process but the aim is to start to define the issues with the aim of taking this forward over the next 12-18 months. An initial draft will be put forward at the workshop and will be made available for community discussion.
More practically Julius has set up an openscience email list based at OpenWetWare. You can sign up just by adding your OWW username to the wiki List page (you do have to be a member of OWW but this is just a matter of signing up). This will be useful for carrying on the conversation not just about standards but also about the all the issue surrounding being open.
I propose the tag osci-protocol to capture the blog based discussion and other discussion.
