| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Viruses found in lung tumours | Main | Saturday Poem »

April 26, 2008

Is Open Access Science the Future?

From Scientific American:

Net 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






Subscribe to this blog's feed

Help 3 Quarks Daily

Bookmark This Page

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

3QD ADVERTISING



Compare prices

  • Canada (French)
  • Australia
  • New Zealand
  • South Africa
  • Brazil
  • Please Visit Wikio

  • Wikio
  • Wikio Shopping
  • LCD Monitor
  • LCD TV
  • Recent Comments

    Danny Bloom on Words of Warming

    Carlos on The Danger of Stress

    Elatia Harris on Reading the 92nd Street Y Catalog: Sephardim and Arabs Need Not Apply

    Felix E F Larocca MD on The Danger of Stress

    Felix E F Larocca MD on Steve Fuller's Science v. Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution

    David Sucher on Reading the 92nd Street Y Catalog: Sephardim and Arabs Need Not Apply

    Elatia Harris on Reading the 92nd Street Y Catalog: Sephardim and Arabs Need Not Apply

    bill on Tuesday Poem

    Elatia Harris on the spy cook

    reader on humans helping computers

    GHills on Words of Warming

    John Ballard on The Danger of Stress

    Wade Nichols on the spy cook

    Jonathan on Steve Fuller's Science v. Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution

    David Sucher on Reading the 92nd Street Y Catalog: Sephardim and Arabs Need Not Apply

    scripto on Steve Fuller's Science v. Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution

    Richard on Tricky Dick's Legacy: A Review of Rick Perlstein's "Nixonland"

    Wade Nichols on Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?

    missvolare on Words of Warming

    Richard Phillipps on Steve Fuller's Science v. Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution

    PD Smith on Steve Fuller's Science v. Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution

    Jon on Can science survive George Bush?

    David Sucher on Reading the 92nd Street Y Catalog: Sephardim and Arabs Need Not Apply

    MattInOz on Words of Warming

    Felix E F Larocca MD on zizek on haiti

    Acclaim For 3QD


    Best Non-European Weblog Winner


    Best Group Blog and Blog Most Deserving of Wider Attention Finalist


    Wikio - Top Blogs

    "I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

    "I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

    "Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

    Subscribe to this blog's feed