Open Data: Unlocking the Power of Science

[Togli]

I have always had some problems with the current political situation of science where some data are collected and some scientific computer program written, yet they are concealed deliberately. The logic is that you spend some labor on it, so you have the right to "possess it" and "publish it", whatever. It sounds fair, but it is not. I think it just casts shadow on the real drive of science , that is to access the truth but (not necessarily) a polished career.

When I think of neuroscience for instance, I am almost 100 % sure that physical mechanisms behind neurological diseases including Alzheimer, Parkinson's, Epilepsy would already have been figured out, and perhaps, some real much more effective cure would have been found for millions suffering from them!

And also, I can imagine some many professors who have the power to access the data but doing nothing else except hiring researchers would perish! It is not hard to see that collective intelligence (like in this forum) is something why companies and some of the professors are afraid of.

A couple of days ago I got into this TED video, talking about open science and its potential powers. My god, I had not known before that a serious math problem was solved by hundreds of comments of a blog (which belongs to a Carnegie Mellon professor) and http://bit.ly/hd53G8".

This has encouraged me here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnWocYKqvhw" for people who are not aware.

 

[JaredJames]

What is this? Some sort of conspiracy non-sense?

I can't make sense of the OP, it seems to drift between various areas and I don't know which one I'm supposed to be working to.

Who is holding data back?

Why are they doing so?

Why do you think such diseases would be cured by now otherwise?

 

[Pengwuino]

Nothing you have said is very substantive. It looks basically like "A) Guy in video says something interesting, B) science isn't perfect, C) bad things that guy talks about does occasionally hinder science, ergo A + B + C = we could have cured all the worlds ills by now".

 

[Evo]

This is the same thing as scientists sharing thoughts in the past. Except now they don't have to travel or send letters.

Aside from that I don't get what you are suggesting. This was controlled by the professor and had many top people contributing to one specific math problem.

 

[turbo]

There were complaints about the long lags in the releases of WMAP data. Many thought such publicly-funded data should have been released promptly, and there were frustrations and speculations by some that perhaps there were surprises in the data that were not being revealed or that there might be some motivation to delay the releases to protect the ability of the principle researchers to publish first.

Cutting-edge research is not devoid of politics and speculation of conspiracy.

 

[Togli]

What is this? Some sort of conspiracy non-sense?

I can't make sense of the OP, it seems to drift between various areas and I don't know which one I'm supposed to be working to.

Who is holding data back?

Why are they doing so?

Why do you think such diseases would be cured by now otherwise?

It is not conspiracy a bit.

They hold it back, because otherwise they won't be able to publish. It is that simple. And if you don't publish in a high-impact journal, no way to go for Johnny.

There would exponential progress, much more ahead. Not everybody has the ability or budget to collect valuable data. Besides, even if they could, why wasting vast amount of time and energy? The guy who collect well and the guys who analyze well are not mostly in the same basket. Somebody talented in physics or applied maths, being anyone in the world, would process it, and how would be the result? It is not hard to see, if you don't close your eyes.

 

[JaredJames]

It is not conspiracy a bit.

Well the way I read it, that's how your OP went(ish - along with a whole host of others).

They hold it back, because otherwise they won't be able to publish. It is that simple. And if you don't publish in a high-impact journal, no way to go for Johnny.

So what's wrong with that?

There would exponential progress.

Really? Is that fact or an assumption on your part? I'd love to see some proof for this.

How do you know the data wouldn't just be processed quicker and then just stagnate for a while? How do you know it would suddenly give exponential progress (check you know what that word means before you continue).

Not everybody has the ability or budget to collect valuable data. Besides, even if they could, why wasting vast amount of time and energy? The guy who collect well and the guys who analyze well are not mostly in the same basket. Somebody talented in physics or applied maths, being anyone in the world, would process it, and how would be the result?

What do you think the result would be? Do you blame people for not just handing their data over to others to take credit for?

I really don't understand what you're getting at with all this. Perhaps you could make some sort of point? Does my confusion not show in the above?

It is not hard to see, if you don't close your eyes.

Is it any wonder why I think crackpot when I read lines like this?

 

[ZapperZ]

There were complaints about the long lags in the releases of WMAP data. Many thought such publicly-funded data should have been released promptly, and there were frustrations and speculations by some that perhaps there were surprises in the data that were not being revealed or that there might be some motivation to delay the releases to protect the ability of the principle researchers to publish first.

Cutting-edge research is not devoid of politics and speculation of conspiracy.

This is silly. You are trying to look for something that isn't there. Instead, you perpetuate innuendos while, at the same time, making accusation about "speculation of conspiracy".

Topics such as this is utterly meaningless. It is nothing more than supermarket tabloid. While demanding science and scientists to uphold a higher standard, it nevertheless stoops to very low standards itself. If you want science data to be open, let's see YOUR data that allows you to draw such conclusions. Oh wait, I forget. You don't have any beyond some video or anecdotes!

Zz.

 

[Vanadium 50]

let's see YOUR data that allows you to draw such conclusions. Oh wait, I forget. You don't have any beyond some video or anecdotes!

That's the beauty of conspiracy theories. The best evidence for them is...no evidence!

There is a story, probably apocryphal, that someone sent Fermilab a FOIA request for all their raw data. Allegedly, the response was, "Fine. It will take about $35,000,000 in magnetic tape, plus another couple of million to hire more operators and buy more robots to make the copies" Where shall we send the bill?"

 

[Togli]

Oh wait, I forget. You don't have any beyond some video or anecdotes!

Really! There have been many books, thinkers beyond collective action & intelligence, i.e., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons" . They are countless.

And there is a book coming out November 2011 by http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/" about "Open Science",titled Reinventing Discovery. He is supported by Information Program of the Open Society Institute, "with assistance from York University".

According to the author, you can find the central themes of it http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/the-future-of-science-2/" .

And I won't get into discussion with ignorant messages. I suppose, open science is for open minded, this thread proves that.

 

[chiro]

I have always had some problems with the current political situation of science where some data are collected and some scientific computer program written, yet they are concealed deliberately. The logic is that you spend some labor on it, so you have the right to "possess it" and "publish it", whatever. It sounds fair, but it is not. I think it just casts shadow on the real drive of science , that is to access the truth but (not necessarily) a polished career.

When I think of neuroscience for instance, I am almost 100 % sure that physical mechanisms behind neurological diseases including Alzheimer, Parkinson's, Epilepsy would already have been figured out, and perhaps, some real much more effective cure would have been found for millions suffering from them!

And also, I can imagine some many professors who have the power to access the data but doing nothing else except hiring researchers would perish! It is not hard to see that collective intelligence (like in this forum) is something why companies and some of the professors are afraid of.

A couple of days ago I got into this TED video, talking about open science and its potential powers. My god, I had not known before that a serious math problem was solved by hundreds of comments of a blog (which belongs to a Carnegie Mellon professor) and http://bit.ly/hd53G8".

This has encouraged me here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnWocYKqvhw" for people who are not aware.

Having watched the video, the speaker makes some great points, and I think a change like this would help move science into unprecedented times where the acceleration of progress would be very dramatic.

However, you have to be aware of societal, cultural and legal norms that exist. If you look at things like intellectual property law like copyright law and patent law, and if you observe the mindset of how these impact society, you'll find out that if you wanted to do what the speaker is saying, you'll see that in order to have a culture that endorses the speakers ideas, you'll have to change our instinctive behaviors and ideals.

To most people its foreign for them to open give their labor away for free. This is probably for a number of reasons that I won't speculate on, but clearly for this kind of thinking to be abolished, you need to really understand the culture behind this thinking.

The one area that this kind of thing has flourished is in the open source community (open source computer code). If this idea was going to be applied to science, a lot of lessons would be learned by studying the open source community and the related issues this has on impacting other areas.

Great video, great idea, which is ahead of its time, but sadly I'm pessimistic that it will shift that way (at least in my lifetime).

 

[turbo]

This is silly. You are trying to look for something that isn't there. Instead, you perpetuate innuendos while, at the same time, making accusation about "speculation of conspiracy".

I'm sorry you feel this way. Peter Woit blogged about the delays in WMAP data releases repeatedly, as did others, including speculation about why there were delays. Given the importance of the CMB to BB cosmology, there were lots of folks wondering If there were perhaps unexpected results or difficultlies in reducing the data. I'm not making this up.

 

[russ_watters]

You don't have to be making it up, turbo-1. We know it isn't your conspiracy theory, but it is still conspiracy theory.

 

[ZapperZ]

Really! There have been many books, thinkers beyond collective action & intelligence, i.e., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons" . They are countless.

And there is a book coming out November 2011 by http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/" about "Open Science",titled Reinventing Discovery. He is supported by Information Program of the Open Society Institute, "with assistance from York University".

According to the author, you can find the central themes of it http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/the-future-of-science-2/" .

And I won't get into discussion with ignorant messages. I suppose, open science is for open minded, this thread proves that.

Wait, books? BOOKS? This is what you call your evidence? I can show you books about aliens being responsible for building the pyramids and the Nazca lines.

Show me the statistics done to show that this is a prevalent issue.

If you think this is an "open minded" issue, then I'll accuse you for not evaluating the validity of your sources. You are no better than those who believe in astrology.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm sorry you feel this way. Peter Woit blogged about the delays in WMAP data releases repeatedly, as did others, including speculation about why there were delays. Given the importance of the CMB to BB cosmology, there were lots of folks wondering If there were perhaps unexpected results or difficultlies in reducing the data. I'm not making this up.

And that is sufficient for you to get on THIS bandwagon that made the accusation that this is a common practice?

There are MANY reasons for why data are being delayed from being released. The people who actually gathered them should have first crack at them because they were being paid to work on them! Furthermore, the public at large has no idea on how to look at the data and in what context!

Here, I'll give you data from my photoemission spectroscopy. Do YOU know what to do with it? Do you?

Zz.

 

[Evo]

Thread has run it's course. Closed.