I reckon the trend toward more open research is both inevitable and beneficial, but methinks the journey will be both messy and at times painfully destructive. Working for Microsoft during the open source revolution left me with scars that twinge when I see familiar patterns playing out in the scientific research community.
- Watching chemists like Jean Claude Bradley publish their experiments as they go, openly, on wiki, failures and all, (with data in machine readable formats) reminds me of that young ‘Torvalds‘ dude before the penguin magic started to kick in.
- Looking at the reaction other science types like ‘the quantum pontiff’ get when they tentatively talk about ideas such as open notebook science (read comments) has a familiar whiff of ignorance. Such as was displayed by many a middle manager in Microsoft who did not get the open movement.
- Listening to podcasts from established publisher Nature, watching things like Plos one emerge and the wild west frontiers like arXiv, remind me of the early public open source plays by companies like IBM and Novell.
Sometimes I think I live in two different worlds – of bits and of atoms. In the online world of digital bits connected via the permisison free zone of the internet, where anything is possible – I am comfortable. The offline world of atoms that make up the air I breathe, the water I need to live and transmit the energy I love to consume does not feel as ‘natural’ to me. A foreign place in which bills must be paid and where those who master the game of serialization of letters and symbols into the written word and who organise themselves into rigid hierarchies fueled by things like rank or impact factor thrive.
technorati tags:seyfang, mikeseyfang
3 responses so far ↓
1
McDawg
// Jul 13, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Another good post Fang.
Have you seen this video mash up by Tony Hirst at the Open University:-
http://mcblawg.blogspot.com/2008/07/edupunk.html
This quite literally rocks !!
McDawg
2
Paul
// Jul 14, 2008 at 10:19 am
Yeah, you do OK at the serialization of symbols yourself. Remember Machiavelli’s quote: “It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from the incredulity of mankind who does not truly believe in anything new until they actually have experience of it.”
3
Jean-Claude Bradley
// Jul 15, 2008 at 7:39 pm
So far the journey has been quite messy, as science almost always is.
But I wouldn’t say destructive – quite the opposite in fact. I cringe to think about where our project would be now if we had continued on the standard path of secrecy.
Leave a Comment