If the recent Darwinian celebrations have taught us anything, it’s that evolution is happening all around us. Science communication is no exception to the rule. As web communication grows, many scientists are exploring new ways of sharing knowledge and communicating ideas. Researchers are posting all aspects of the scientific process on the web, ranging from raw data to preprints of journal articles. While open access is clearly beneficial for science as a whole, the question arises: Is open science good for researchers?
The answer to this question was explored in depth at a panel presentation today at Columbia University. The panelists included Bora Zivkovic (long time blogger and online community manager for PLoS), Barry Canton (founder of Gingko BioWorks and the OpenWetWare wiki), and Jean-Claude Bradley (Associate Professor at Drexel and founder of UsefulChem).
In brief, the concepts underlying open access science are pretty straightforward: (1) All data is free and public. (2) Findings and methods can be portrayed in a variety of web-based mediums. While simple in theory, some consider this risky business. However, the consensus amongst the panel was that open science has many more advantages than fallbacks. For example, outlets like open notebook science allow individuals to depict every detail of their work on a daily basis. This can help other scientists reproduce data and master new techniques more effectively. It can even help scientists in less developed countries gain access to information they could not obtain otherwise. Additionally, preprinting work on sites like Nature Precedings allows researchers to get feedback on their ideas and findings, ultimately subjecting their work to a peer-review process before publication.
But we must be realistic about transitioning into open science. In an environment where both your livelihood and credentials are based on your publication record, getting scooped is fatal. Not all fields can risk presenting findings before publication. Rather, fields that are less competitive or require unique research environments are more amenable to open science. Thus, we must accept that the transition to open science may not be right for everyone.
Perhaps one day, when scientific funding is plentiful, open science will be a widely accepted form of academic communication. Researchers will be more likely to share findings and communicate openly with competitors. We should hope that time comes sooner rather than later. Only then can science communication really evolve.
It was so great to finally meet you in person! I have to say I had fun at the panel myself ;-) See you and the rest of the NYC NN crew tomorrow night!
Looking forward to it Bora!
That was a very thoughtful summary Caryn! Having a lot of time for the panel portion was very useful to really discuss the ideas that were brought up in the talks – I enjoyed the event a lot.
As did I Jean-Claude. I was curious about what the panel thinks about open science education for undergraduates. Are the ideas underlying open access being taught in high school and university courses?
Hi Caryn,
Great summary of the program yesterday – everyone I spoke to seemed to get a lot out of it. Open access science is a very exciting, almost utopian development. Observing the effects of open science on the way science is communicated will be very interesting. It will stir up a lot of debate on the moral/ethical issues involved in science communications (such as teaming up to cure diseases, for example) – I’m looking forward to seeing what happens with this great experiment over the next 20 years and beyond.
Caryn,
Most of the students participating in the Open Notebook Science Solubility Challenge are undergraduates so they certainly get exposure that way.
Good point Miriam. It is clear the open science can aid in curing disease. I am wondering if big pharma will ever be open to it. Unlikely, but kind of paradoxical.
Perhaps one day, when scientific funding is plentiful, open science will be a widely accepted form of academic communication.
For me this statement captures the air of unreality about this post. I’ve no doubt that the internet has transformed – and greatly enhanced – the scientific process. It has already accelerated the publication process. And certainly the “open science” movement is an interesting development but I remain very skeptical. You mention that there are reservations but I don’t see how the benefits are workable in a competitive funding environment. And what real benefits are there? Methods can already be shared online without revealing what you are doing in the lab.
While I have deep reservations about the funding processes we have to submit to I think the competitive element is essential. If there was too much money floating around, a lot of it would simply be wasted on bad science – there are plenty of mediocre scientists in this business and we need a mechanism that weeds them out. Mediocre scientists are the ones most likely to feed off the freely available ideas of others, since they’re unlikely to generate their own.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m very much in favour of scientific exchange and openness but I also have my career and job satisfaction to think about. I don’t being scooped and I’m not about to make it easier for that to happen.
Stephen, while disagreeing with me, you clarify another point:
Thus, we must accept that the transition to open science may not be right for everyone.
Additionally, I am not sure that the competitive element is essential for science. Rather, I believe that the creative element is essential. Whether funding is readily available or not, good science will still be recognized as good science. It will still be published in the more prestigious journals and cited regularly. I don’t think that excess funding will hurt science so readily.
But, I do see some rational to your natural selection approach to scientific funding. With excess funding, more scientists can be employed to do research; thus, it is inevitable we will gain mediocre researchers in addition to superb ones. But I think you underestimate the checks and balances of the peer-review process in this context.
Hi Caryn!
I totally agree that creativity is necessary but don’t think we can dispense with competition so easily. If anything, creativity is likely to be boosted in a competitive environment. Maybe Obama’s stimulation package is about to result in a bean-feast for US scientists but I don’t see days of wine and roses ahead for us here in the UK, so the ‘problem’ of excess funding remains a theoretical one.
For sure peer-review applies valuable checks and balances, but isn’t part of the agenda of open science to get away from that? The idea of pre-printing for feedback horrifies me (though I am happy to circulate manuscripts privately among trusted colleagues).
As you say, it isn’t for everyone but I am trying to figure out who is it for? I can see that well-funded public sequencing projects should operate openly but see no benefit for the average lab. Am I just being short-sighted (I wouldn’t rule that out…)?
I think it is quite easy to have a hard time dealing with the concepts of open science. This is the case for me as well. As a graduate student, I would essentially lose all my graduate work if I were to get scooped. It scares me to even think about that!
I think in order for open science to apply to all sciences, the very foundations of research would have to change (which is not likely to happen anytime soon). We would have to transcend in a sense. So I think open science is more applicable to those fields which require a unique research environment for their work, like those who study environmental phenomena rather than those who work in a laboratory.
In a sense, I think I am being a bit unrealistic thinking the transition to a completely different research foundation will be so smooth. It’s just that utopia looks so nice:)
Well perhaps I shouldn’t be so cynical? After all, the open source movement has done some great things…
I think this is an important discussion. We need to be realistic about how far Open Science can be pushed, and not expect it to be welcomed everywhere immediately. But we also need to look carefully at the reasons for resisting it, and at the reasons for barriers to openness.
I think it is a little analogous to the Open Access debate. In some disciplines (Physics, e.g.) it seems to work very well and has moved on. Some publishers have embraced it; some have real issues about full and immediate Open Access.
All publishers now need to look at how their business works, and how they can thrive in a world where Open Access is increasing.
I have to agree largely with Stephen on these points. Whilst I am fully behind journals providing open-access to published science, having access to science prior to publication is not currently realistic for most fields or scientists. For one, the whole scientific world has to agree to this (not just one country), which is probably the biggest stumbling block.
With funding being scarce in most countries and this being based on prior success, the whole system of science would need to change for this to be possible.
Frank- I agree. It seems like it is working better in some fields than others. I think it may take a while (if ever) for scientists to fully embrace open science.
Barry- As I said before, I also agree that the foundations of science must change too. Thus, it will be a long transition period that may only fully develop in some disciplines.
One important thing I think journals can do, is to make authors deposit their data in a freely available depsitory (where there is one) or in other form, upon publication of the paper. This, to my mind, is very important – and it is not hard for publishers to insist on this (as the Nature journals, and other good journals, do). Where there is a public, annotated repository, the data can be placed there as a matter of journal policy (eg microarrays, protein structures, various sequences, and so on).
This is an interesting discussion. To some extent there is already local open notebook science. I am already happy to share experimental details/theoretical insights over the coffee table in my department, because I am secure in the knowledge that none of my colleagues would scoop me. There, we work in an atmosphere of complete mutual trust. I am not at all sure that that would apply in the web community. as has been discussed previously, we (the collective scientific community) see great importance in precedence; as do the publishers (Nature, Science etc.). For open notebook science to really work will require a total paradigm shift in how we assess scientific quality, originality and assign credit to where it is due.
Maxine- Perhaps that is the best alternative for those who are hesitant to embrace open science. That way, data is free for all to use and scientists get credit where credit is deserved.
Brain- I agree. In some fields, perhaps the coffee table is the limit for now.
Hi Caryn, in response to your question about undergraduate open science education, I’ve been trying out open science for a junior-level lab at U. New Mexico for a couple years: our site on OpenWetWare and also my blog post about it . As with the Opennotebook Solubility Challenge, my view is that it is going to have quite a powerful affect on these students’ future research behaviors.
Thanks Steven! I think undergraduate education is important for the transition into open science in fields that are starting to use it.
Very much enjoyed the account of your open science education Steven – sounds like the way to get the next generation to pick this up, though it did seem to be hard work.
I remain sceptical about the whole project though. Open access is an interesting and welcome aspect of the open science project but is not one that necessarily undermines priority and career/grant opportunities.
I think we are still at the stage of asking questions about the role Open Science can play. No-one really has the answers yet but it is important to be open to hearing the questions and to accepting the challenge of answering them. Some, like Jean-Claude et al, have stated that for them open science has real benefits over the traditional route of keeping data secret. They claim that open science is the right way to go. Is it? To find the answer we need to consider a variety of questions.
Is competition a better model than collaboration? Intra-institutional collaboration is a feature of institute research, and big (e.g. EU) projects depend on trust, openness and collaboration. Can this be pushed further? Take a scenario where three labs around the globe are competing to be first to a particular scientific goal. Is it really better for the first to get there to gain all the credit while the other two get none? Or should they collaborate, share data and share credit? This looks like the classic prisoner’s dilemma.
Is data secrecy a good model? Research funders are not convinced about this. MRC and Wellcome each have policies on data sharing. To what extent is data generation tied up with data interpretation? Do we accept that those who are best at devising and carrying out experiments are always the best at interpreting those data?
Furthermore, as life science data in the published literature becomes more available (through e.g. PubMedCentral and its text mining programmes), will we see more emphasis on data interpretation as a separate scientific activity? Think of astronomy and its virtual observatory .
Clearly the current practice of keeping a tight rein on data is bound up with the need for publication priority and professional preferment, and to meddle with this risks serious damage to careers. BUT, we have to ask whether this is absolutely the best way to do science and whether it will remain the best way to do science as time and technology move on.
In the collaborative sense, perhaps initiatives like translational research will be more amenable to open science, because it results in novel hybrid ideas and methodologies.
The video of the panel is now online
Thanks Bora! I will check it out and spread the word.
While I realize I am a bit late in contributing to this discussion; I wanted to inject a slightly different perspective if I may. Over the course of the past three years, I have designed a web-based platform which utilizes microfinancing as an alternative source for scientific research funding. Fundamentally, this platform functions by accepting scientific research project proposals (along with their projected budgets), reviewing these via a distributed peer-review system, and then publishing them online to receive financing from the broader internet community. Once financed, the funds are transferred to each researcher to commence with their work while, simultaneously, updating a ‘research log’ which will serve as a forum for two-way communication between the researcher and their investors.
The theory underlying this platform is that (1) researchers will have a greater incentive to share their ongoing project data ‘on-the-fly’ if the individuals with whom they are sharing have invested, financially, in the project itself; and (2) increased access to researchers, and their work, will potentially inspire more students to contribute/become involved in the research process, as well as increase overall societal awareness of what is occurring within the research community.
In regard to the risk of one lab ‘scooping’ another; while this risk remains within the status quo; it is a ‘risk’ only because large foundations/governments and universities/colleges evaluate the quality and reputation of a researcher based upon their prior publications in making decisions regarding grants and tenure, respectively. By creating an alternative economy, however, in time, we may well see the development of a parallel market where researchers are evaluated by potential investors based upon the quality of their work as exhibited in their ongoing logs.
We are currently working toward launching our pilot program through the University of Maryland – Baltimore County during the upcoming fall semester. If anybody here is interested; I will be more than happy to provide updates regarding the progress of this study; and the problems/outcomes we encounter throughout its course.
For more information on our project itself, please visit:
Parent Homepage: http://www.theopensourcescienceproject.com
Sub-Project Homepage: http://www.thehumanbrainproject.com
Microfinance Platform: http://www.mf.thehumanbrainproject.com