April 26, 2008
Is Open Access Science the Future?
From Scientific American:
Web 2.0 technologies open up a much richer dialogue, says Bill Hooker, a postdoctoral cancer researcher at the Shriners Hospital for Children in Portland, Ore., and author of a three-part survey on open-science efforts that appeared at 3 Quarks Daily (www.3quarksdaily.com), where a group of bloggers write about science and culture. “To me, opening up my lab notebook means giving people a window into what I’m doing every day,” Hooker says. “That’s an immense leap forward in clarity. In a paper, I can see what you’ve done. But I don’t know how many things you tried that didn’t work. It’s those little details that become clear with an open [online] notebook but are obscured by every other communication mechanism we have. It makes science more efficient.” That jump in efficiency, in turn, could greatly benefit society, in everything from faster drug development to greater national competitiveness.
Of course, many scientists remain wary of such openness—especially in the hypercompetitive biomedical fields, where patents, promotion and tenure can hinge on being the first to publish a new discovery. For these practitioners, Science 2.0 seems dangerous: putting your serious work out on blogs and social networks feels like an open invitation to have your lab notebooks vandalized—or, worse, your best ideas stolen and published by a rival.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 08:25 AM | Permalink






Comments
I remember Bill's series for 3QD very well, and at the time thought how original and progressive his thinking was, and what a good writer he was too. First time for me that SA has tuned into something only after I find out about it. Thanks, Azra -- and congrats, Bill!
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Apr 26, 2008 10:28:43 AM
The matter is really: Publish or perish…
No one believes that scientific articles are that scientific or worthy of the designation of being original or of any value.
Our "veracious" (and voracious) president Clinton used to expressed his doubts about the essence of things when he asked: “What do you mean by sex?”
Well: “What do they mean by science?” DSM-IV-R?
Posted by: Felix E. F. Larocca MD | Apr 26, 2008 11:00:59 AM
I am not sure how making lab notebooks public- before (not after) the work has reached a conclusion- or a deadlock is a good idea.
Posted by: MS | Apr 26, 2008 11:32:53 AM
A scientific publication is of enormous importance because it summarizes and analyzes the research efforts that have been jotted down by the researcher over a long period of time. I can't see how my own academic work would look like if I had to get an understanding of prior knowledge by sifting through a vast amount of online lab notebooks. Publishing (peer reviewed) is a matter of politeness towards other researchers in the research community!
Posted by: Timo Hartmann | Apr 27, 2008 12:20:05 PM
Post a comment