[open-science] open-science Digest, Vol 17, Issue 7

Wed Mar 24 15:09:04 UTC 2010

Here's our short working paper on this topic. We're posting it to our 
website later today after a few details get crossed off.

On 3/24/10 10:46 AM, Iain Hrynaszkiewicz wrote:
> Dear John, and Tom,
>
> I was excited to read your discussions of data standards and look
> forward to the PLoS article (tomorrow?).
>
> /BMC Research Notes/ (http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes/) is also
> very interested in this area and is trying to encourage data-driven
> publications, data harvesting and re-use; a corollary to which is
> guidance and best practice for sharing in different science disciplines.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Iain
>
> PS. I absolutely agree consent for sharing from human subjects, as part
> of study recruitment, is key to overcoming privacy barriers.
>
> *From:* Tom Moritz [mailto:tom.moritz at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 24 March 2010 14:36
> *To:* John Wilbanks
> *Cc:* Cameron Neylon; Iain Hrynaszkiewicz; open-science at lists.okfn.org
> *Subject:* Re: [open-science] open-science Digest, Vol 17, Issue 7
>
> John's comments are important and point up a fundamental issue
> respecting making disclosed
> data /_effective_/ / /_useful._/ Data placed on an electronic billboard
> next to the Santa Monica Freeway
> are openly available but are virtually useless except by a series of
> cumbersome machinations.../_
> _/
> At a time when government agencies in the US are being pushed to
> disclose data it is essential
> that we develop guidelines and standards for making disclosed data
> directly useful -- not just "informative"...
>
> The IPCC situation ("Climate-gate") has made all the more clear why the
> precise lineages and provenance of data
> -- the record of scientific work flow, transformations, combinations and
> recombinations -- must be readily available for
> review and assessment...
>
> Tom
>
> Tom Moritz
> 1968 1/2 South Shenandoah Street,
> Los Angeles, California 90034
> USA
> +1 310 963 0199 (cell)
> tommoritz (Skype)
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/tmoritz
>
> “Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει” (Everything flows, nothing stands still.)
> --Heraclitus
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 6:19 AM, John Wilbanks
> <wilbanks at creativecommons.org <mailto:wilbanks at creativecommons.org>> wrote:
>
> I sent a version of this to Daniel privately, but he noted that perhaps
> it might have gone to the list as well. It ties into Cameron's point
> about avoiding this question entirely in the PP, but also into the
> importance of understanding what "open data" actually means.
>
> Remember that "open" in the sense of the SC protocol, the OKF definition
> and the panton principles is about the *intellectual property* rights
> associated with data - copyrights, database rights - and *contractual
> property* rights associated with data products. Open doesn't mean it's
> free of constraints like privacy, and it also doesn't mean the data are
> actually *useful* - curated, annotated, explained.
>
> Privacy rights are vastly complex and cannot be waived with public
> licenses like intellectual property rights. there is a complex process
> known as "informed consent" that must be achieved before privacy rights
> can be legally waived, and that consent must be vetted through a process
> approved by an institution's IRB (institutional review board). The IRB
> terms govern the movement of data, under application by researchers.
>
> Thus, data can indeed be "open" under the PP but not made available to
> the world, as the PP only touch on the IP aspects of data. Privacy
> rights create a major driver for using the public domain on data
> actually, as the prevalence of privacy rights on vast swaths of science
> data - be clinical health data or social science research - renders
> those data incompatible with "viral" sharing regimes on data, as many
> viral regimes disallow the addition of content that cannot itself be
> made viral.
>
> When the data is in the PD, it can flow into a clinical or social
> science database, and then be redistributed under the terms that the IRB
> set forward for the original data, as redistribution of data is
> invaluable in these fields, albeit under much tighter restrictions than
> we associate with "open" science.
>
> We're working on standardizing IRB agreements right now at Creative
> Commons, based on our years of experience with the huntingtons,
> parkinsons, alzheimers, and other rare disease communities that deal
> with privacy issues in the clinical space. these are in many ways the
> easy ones, because the diseases involved make informed consent easier to
> get. informed consent for healthy control subjects is going to be the
> harder problem. and in social science the issues may be irresolvable -
> deidentification is so easy these days, and getting easier.
>
> We're also working on standards for publishing data sets in a format
> that is actively "re-useful" and will be publishing a set of
> recommendations tomorrow in conjunction with the PLoS Forum that encode
> the PP as the legal part of a multivariate problem of making online data
> actively reusable.
>
> I would prefer the FAQs not overstate the power of "open" from an IP
> perspective. Data that is online but burdened with privacy, or with poor
> curation and annotation, lacking persistent URIs, and so forth - that
> data meets the principles, but is likely to be of little use to a
> working scientist. We run the risk of overheated expectations if we
> simply say "raw data now" - the reality is far more complex, and we're
> not all Tim BL ):-)
>
> jtw
>
>
>
>
> On 3/23/10 2:35 AM, Cameron Neylon wrote:
>
> The original idea behind the Panton Principles was that we sidestep this
> issue. The key point being that where there are privacy issues (or other
> issues) you simply do not choose to publish the data. The PP are not, at
> least as far as the bullet points are concerned, to dictate when, how, or if
> data are published.
>
> The PP are intended to be applied after the decision has been taken to
> publish the data. And by "publish" we meant to be extremely general - hence
> the addition I made the other day to the FAQ. I think it is important to be
> clear on this point because the term "publish" often means something very
> different to different people. And for many researchers it explicitly
> doesn't include "make available on the web".
>
> Cheers
>
> Cameron
>
>
> On 23/03/2010 13:26, "daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com
> <mailto:daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com>"
> <daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com <mailto:daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Iain,
>
>
> on the first point, what do you think of the current
>
> phrasing
>
> "Respecting the privacy of research subjects should be an
>
> integral
>
> part of the decision whether to make the data Open."?
>
>
> With kind regards,
>
>
> Daniel
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Iain
> Hrynaszkiewicz
>
> <Iain.Hrynaszkiewicz at biomedcentral.com
> <mailto:Iain.Hrynaszkiewicz at biomedcentral.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
> Writing from a publisher that is keen to make data available, I'd like
> to
> point out two sets of guidance relevant to some matters arising from
> the
> pirate pad discussions on the Panton Principles.
>
> Firstly, the issue of
> protecting privacy in human subject research. This
> is a major barrier to the
> sharing of clinical information and I wonder
> if it is being glossed over in
> the FAQ (13). Some practical guidance on
> openly sharing clinical data was
> published in the BMJ earlier this year,
> for example:
>
> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jan28_1/c181
>
> Secondly, applying PP
> prior to publication. At BioMed Central, for
> example, we encourage openly
> sharing data before formal publication [in
> a peer-reviewed journal] and
> encourage editors to not preclude open
> projects from publication.
>
> http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/duplicatepublication
> So perhaps PP
> should be applied more uniformly, without the need to
> clarify what
> 'publication' is.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Iain
>
>
> Iain Hrynaszkiewicz
>
> Managing Editor
> BioMed Central
> Floor 6, 236 Gray's Inn Road
> London, WC1X
> 8HL
> T: +44 (0)20 3192 2175
> F: +44 (0)20 3192 2011
> W:
> www.biomedcentral.com/ <http://www.biomedcentral.com/>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> open-science-bounces at lists.okfn.org
> <mailto:open-science-bounces at lists.okfn.org>
>
> [mailto:open-science-bounces at lists.okfn.org
> <mailto:open-science-bounces at lists.okfn.org>] On Behalf Of
>
> open-science-request at lists.okfn.org
> <mailto:open-science-request at lists.okfn.org>
> Sent: 18 March 2010 12:00
> To:
> open-science at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
> Subject: open-science Digest, Vol 17, Issue
> 7
>
> Send open-science mailing list submissions to
>
> open-science at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World
> Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>
> open-science-request at lists.okfn.org
> <mailto:open-science-request at lists.okfn.org>
>
> You can reach the person managing the
> list at
> open-science-owner at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-science-owner at lists.okfn.org>
>
> When replying, please
> edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of
> open-science digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. FAQs for the Panton
> Principles and Open Data (Peter Murray-Rust)
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:43:47 +0000
> From: Peter Murray-Rust
> <pm286 at cam.ac.uk <mailto:pm286 at cam.ac.uk>>
> Subject: [open-science] FAQs for the Panton Principles and
> Open Data
> To: open-science<open-science at lists.okfn.org
> <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>>
> Message-ID:
>
> <67fd68331003170943h3ab178d5y64f9086c3af5c597 at mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:67fd68331003170943h3ab178d5y64f9086c3af5c597 at mail.gmail.com>>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> We are talking to a variety
> of editors and publishers who are keen to
> make
> data "open available" and
> in many cases mandate it as part of the
> scientific
> process. It's clear
> that although PP are (I hope) fairly
> self-explanatory
> the implications
> (licences, buttons, "public domain", community norms,
> etc.)
> are unclear
> and need careful explanation. One way to do this is through
> FAQs
> and we
> (Rufus, Cameron, Jonathan + me) are asking for the help of the
> OpenScience
> list to provide useful communal answers. I'll post the FAQs
> -
> feel welcome
> to add to them but not TOO many - and ask you to create
> answers. There is a
> pirate pad at:
>
> http://piratepad.net/LgLRcGLw35
>
> Please use to edit,
> discuss, hack etc.
>
> We will appreciate rapid feedback as we hope to promote
> this to
> attendees at
> the AmerChemicalSoc (ACS) next week.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of
> Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>
> URL:
>
> <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20100317/a4e49
>
> f69/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
>
> open-science at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
>
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
>
> End of open-science
> Digest, Vol 17, Issue 7
> *******************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
>
> open-science at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
>
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen
>
> _____________________________
>
> __________________
>
> open-science mailing
>
> list
>
> open-science at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-s
>
> cience
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: data-publication-edit.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 163308 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20100324/2175edce/attachment-0003.pdf>