So I’m a bit late on the post-Scifoo blogging…I’ve only just gotten back from California.
Overall, the thing that struck me the most at Scifoo was how conservative science and scientists are. I know, not a groundbreaking idea, but I think that it took an unconventional event like Scifoo to really show the contrast between the unconventional scientists at Scifoo and the rest of the scientific world.
The way scientists communicate and publish and evaluate each other’s work and the way they meet each other and connect haven’t kept up with the changes happening in the science they do and the technology they use to do it.
One result of this conservatism was seen in one of the most revealing and, frankly, depressing sessions I attended at Scifoo. Run by Alex Palazzo, a Harvard postdoc, and Andrew Walkingshaw, a postdoc at the U. of Cambridge (both inspired by a conversation they had with Eric Lander on day 1 of Scifoo), the session was called “The culture of fear: young scientists and scientific communication.”
Alex and Andrew talked about how they felt they couldn’t pursue the values of open science (rapid online publication and discussion of data, experiments, ideas, hypotheses) because they have to establish their careers in a very competitive environment: publishing in top journals, not getting scooped, getting the right credit for their work. The ‘system’ traps young scientists (biologists mostly) concerned about their careers into following the old, restrictive rules and discourages them from trying new ways of scientific communication and publication. Those who don’t like the rules and/or can’t succeed under them are driven out of academic science, a situation that Pam Silver, a systems biology professor at Harvard Medical School who was at the session, said was a “crisis” situation. And those who want to work within the system end up doing “safe science,” not high-risk, ground-breaking science.
Alex gets into more detail on the issues here and here.
The message I got from this session was that the problem arises from much bigger issues: the need for more and better ways of evaluating scholarship and assigning credit to scientists and the overemphasis of publishing in a number of top journals that’s too small relative to the amount of good science going on. I’m not really sure what can be done to solve this, short of massive cultural change across the entire scientific community. That change can begin with departments brave enough to hire people who don’t necessarily follow the rules, but who are still able to demonstrate creative thinking and excellent scholarship.
That change can also begin with things like Scifoo and new kinds of journals and websites that bend/break the rules and force people to interact and think differently.
Let’s take Scifoo.
The event (I’m not even going to call it a conference) was so different in so many ways. People from an incredibly wide range of disciplines and sectors of society were thrown together: wealthy investors, celebrities, fiction writers, graphic artists, grad students, CEOs, entrepreneurs, postdocs, inventors, futurists, technologists, biologists, physicists, computer scientists (and plenty of people who do work in all 3 areas), etc etc etc. When provided with plenty of food, sugary drinks and coffee, and a fun, relaxed, noncompetitive atmosphere—not to mention the lack of fixed agenda—new ideas bloomed and new relationships formed: ideas and relationships that would never have formed in any other way. (At the closing session, people lined up at the microphone to give anecdotes about the people they met, the new collaborations forged, and new ideas that they just couldn’t wait to pursue…the giddiness was apparent.)
I think that evolving the way science is communicated and the way scientists meet each other and interact—opening it up, crossing disciplinary borders, encouraging more friendly, free-wheeling exchange—will lead to better, more innovative ideas, which will in turn lead to better science, IMHO. This was only the second year of Scifoo so it remains to be seen what kind of impact this kind of ‘unconference’ format will have on science.
But it has at least begun to change the way some scientists think and communicate. Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and professor at UC Davis, began blogging earnestly about a year ago, after he attended the first Scifoo. He told me that Scifoo “changed my life.” It turned him on to the values of open communication and open science.
More recently, Scifoo has even inspired people who didn’t attend. Hari Jayaram, a Brandeis postdoc, just resurrected his blog on NN. Welcome back Hari!
I hope to see more scientists follow suit…not necessarily just in blogging, but in contributing to their community through open communication. (If anyone who attended Scifoo was inspired to blog and/or share their science more openly, and you’re reading this, please post a comment here!)
Scifoo I think was also a good reminder that scientists are (and should be!) more than just scientists: they are citizens with lots of great ideas who should interact with other citizens (nonscientists, scientists from fields far from their own) with lots of great ideas. Those interactions can open up the mind, get the creative juices flowing, and hopefully lower the level of conservatism among scientists that can hold back exciting progress.
—-
Go here to see what other people have been blogging about the meeting. You can read more detailed accounts of some of the sessions: trolling through Jim Watson’s genome, capitalism and science; search and data mining and science and the media. You can get a sense for the wide, wide range of sessions here.
Last updated:
Thursday, 09 Aug
2007 - 18:39 UTC
Unfortunately I missed that session on young scientists and fear. Remembering back on the time that I started up my academic career, I think that fear was generally pervasive. Regardless of the project or approach, doing research (by its very nature) is uncertain and risky. Ultimately, you have to trust your instincts, work hard and hope for the best.
Although I did feel the trepidation of researchers wanting to change the system by becoming more open, I also detected fear on the other side and I think that may have translated into some of the heated discussions that transpired. Those who have worked hard and want to keep playing by the same rules of traditional publishing may fear this Open Science movement with some justification. If your competitors are starting to publish their work in real time, it is probably not going to be pleasant to see results similar to the ones you have been hoarding for a year pop up in a blog or wiki. Ironically that fear may drive much of open science in a later period of the movement.
That’s really interesting, Jean-Claude. I guess competition and fear can work the other way too. Either way, fear and competition are great motivators, aren’t they! Now we just need more brave souls to take that first step…
Corie, that is a very good summary, I clearly recognized some scifoo conversations. Similarly to Jean-Claude I missed the Fear session (I visited Jonathan Eisen’s Human Microbiome presentation), and just now have the time to explore what happened there .
Excellent blog. What else can people do?
1. Be more open — likke you suggest
2. Convince their employers (e.g., Nature) or universities, to be more open
3. Give preference on tenure, grants, hiring, etc to people breaking the mold. Stop hiring people who are doing things the old school way.
4. Break the system. Good example – stop publishing in or reviewing for non OA journals. Another example – free your data, even before you publish analyses.
5. Give credit to those who have contributed to your work – especially if this was through Open communication. If a journal says “we can’t site that” take your paper elsewhere. Write long acknowledgement sections. Let people know that they helped. Send emails for them to forward to their deans or bosses.
5. Spread the word
Jonathan – those are all good ideas and we have to keep repeating them.
Creative solutions will emerge from the conversation.
Open Science is certainly not a monolithic movement and people can start to take small steps towards openness according to what they value most. It is certainly not an all or nothing decision.
I’m not sure why the OA journals issue keeps getting lumped in with open notebook science (to use the phrase Heather Piwowar coined – or maybe it was J.C?)
Not talking about the comments here, incidentally, but at SciFoo and on the blog coverage thereof.
Presumably young researchers aren’t afraid to publish in peer-reviewed OA journals. PLoS Biology has a pretty good impact factor, AFAIK.
There’s a discussion to be had about how / why science publishing should embrace OA but isn’t it different to the one we’re talking about here – making data and analyses available before publication?
The two topics are closely linked, sure, but why don’t we tackle them one at a time…
Yes, Euan, I got the impression from Scifoo discussions that publishing in open access journals (ie making peer-reviewed and edited research freely available after publication) isn’t a major source of fear or controversy (although most young biologists would still prefer publishing in Nature/Science over PLoS Biology, I think).
The real issue is pre-publication discussion of data and experiments, including open notebook science.
Some people at Scifoo talked about how the two topics, though linked, are getting confused and, as you say, lumped together. I think it’s because most people know about OA, but fewer know or understand the idea of open notebooks/open science. So when they hear about the latter, they think you’re referring to the former.
I agree with you: I think the OA issue, though not completely solved, has already been talked about enough. I think it’s time to tackle open science/open notebook. Yes, one thing at a time…
I agree that Open Science is different in some ways than OA publishing. But I think you are off base a bit in your desire to move on to a new topic. These issues are more related than you make it seem.
To say OA publishing has been solved because you would be willing to publish a paper in PLoS Biology is inaccurate. The vast vast majority of publications are still not in OA journals. And of the publications that some consider OA, only a small fraction are in journals like ones from PLoS where Creative Commons licenses are used. I think without a doubt OA publishing has some of the same issues surrounding it as Open Science, just to different degrees. For example:
1. Why do people still publish in non OA journals? Well – because they say the want to get a job or tenure or a promotion. Same reason that people say they are worried about Open Science.
2. Why are some people afraid of depositing their publications in archives like Arxiv before it gets published in an official journals? Because they say, the Arxiv does not count as a real publication and they are worried about citations, or getting scooped, etc.
I could go on an on. But OA publishing and Open Science are part of one continuum. To try to artificially separate them simply because there are some high profile OA journals is unnecessary and I think a bad idea.
Good points Jonathan. I guess what I was trying to say is that I think most biologists would say that, in theory, the idea of open access (ie having peer-reviewed, published papers freely available) is a good one…although, as you say, very very few people actually walk the talk. But at least we don’t have to work as hard to convince them of the merits of the idea.
But I don’t think most scientists would say open science (making pre-publication data/info freely available) is a good idea. There, we have a lot more work to convince people of the merits of that idea. It’s a distinction that in the end is probably pretty small since it’s going to be tough no matter what to get people to back up words with action on both fronts for the reasons you state.
Great discussion. There are more good comments on Neil Saunders’ blog and this SciFoo forum post by Corie.
The one part of science I have never understood, even as a graduate student was this paranoid obsession with “your” data. Why is it that when it comes to software, scientists are the first to say “but I have to know how it works”, but when it comes to sharing their data, the are reluctant to do the same.
Jonathan is quite right. While the two issues might be perceived differently, they can’t truly be separated, even if we do so for our own convenience.
One thing I did learn from Scifoo. We all know what the problems are. Lets do something about them, but in a sensible way. Never having been accused of being too sensible, that matter will be left to smarter folk
paranoid obsession with “your” data
I think that’s a lot to do with how PhD students are trained. It’s very territorial – you claim your bench space when you start (and expand it as you get more senior), you have your lab notebook, your fridge/freezer boxes, your pipettes. You spend a lot of time alone, heightening the sense that your problems and data are “yours”. I’m sure there are exceptional labs with a strong group ethos, but the “lone researcher” is more common in my experience.
I would like to comment on a separate issue. It is concerned with what Timo wrote “People from an incredibly wide range of disciplines… new ideas bloomed”.
I was at SciFoo 2006 and I am still fixated with the idea that although the talks there where from a wide range of disciplines, a common noticeable theme emerged everywhere: different aspects of trying to understand complex-systems and complexity.
It is becoming apparent that as seas of data accumulate in many scientific disciplines similar design principles and patterns of complex systems emerge. Science is still at its infancy with understanding the theory behind this. Team, open, multi- cross- and inter- disciplinary science is the only way to handle the complexity of complexity. The SciFoo meeting and Nature Network are great venues to bring ideas together across sciences, and where similar ideas unexpectedly emerge from seemingly unrelated sciences. I believe that the most significant progress and breakthroughs Timo is referring to, will come in a form of a unifying theory of complex systems.
I plan to post more details about this idea soon.
I think new media capabilities allow for the developing young scientist to not only collaborate to a higher degree than before but also to take risks. It has become so easy these days to get an idea out there and then have others comment on them without the fear of getting penalized.
I am the webmaster for www.Genomealbertaeducation.ca, a website that regularly publishes posts on genomics education.