[open-science] open-science Digest, Vol 37, Issue 4

[Open Science Kentucky]

Thanks for your commentary, Robert.

OSK agrees completely that a multifaceted approach is warranted. Our
organization's intention is to inspire more OS awareness/action among those
participating in science, day to day, so that funding agencies will realize
accounting for the OS-practicing community's contributions is indeed
necessary. This will increase incentives in both directions.

Andrew

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:00 AM, <open-science-request at lists.okfn.org> wrote:

> Send open-science mailing list submissions to
>        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
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        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. Re: Marketing goals (Robert Muetzelfeldt)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:40:23 +0000
> From: Robert Muetzelfeldt <r.muetzelfeldt at ed.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [open-science] Marketing goals
> To: open-science at lists.okfn.org
> Message-ID: <4EB30A47.7030804 at ed.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hello, Open Science Kentucky,
>
> You say:
> On 03/11/11 20:18, Open Science Kentucky wrote:
> > Because OS cannot become reality based on utilization by zealots
> > alone, the average scientist must adopt it. For this to happen, the
> > average scientist has to believe OS will be the predominant scientific
> > paradigm, challenging him/her to not use it.
> The second sentence - and indeed the whole flavour of your posting -
> ignores the potential role of the funding bodies.   Sure, one possible
> route for the adoption of OS is from the grassroots up.   But another is
> that funding bodies promote it, in much the same way that (in the UK at
> least) there is now an obligation to include a Knowledge Exchange
> component in research proposals (and that certainly did not come from a
> groundswell of opinion in the research community itself).  I can see
> some good reasons why they could well choose to go down this route.  I
> can also see some good reasons why they may not.  But at least we should
> entertain the possibility, and indeed consider ways of getting them to
> see that it's actually in their own interest to encourage/require some
> degree of OS in funded projects.
>
> Cheers,
> Robert
>
>
> --
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
>
> End of open-science Digest, Vol 37, Issue 4
> *******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20111104/d1ab641c/attachment.html>