[open-science] open-science Digest, Vol 37, Issue 5 (Marketing/open science Kentucky)

Sat Nov 5 12:36:51 UTC 2011

Andrew,

Thanks for these ideas. Marketing and promoting a vision are unquestionably
important. But I worry that we're already talking a lot ABOUT open science
(many excellent journalists are writing very supportive and perceptive
pieces), and what we could use are more people in the lab DOING it. (I
think that is your ultimate intention, naturally) For that to happen I
think our efforts should not necessarily be to convince people of open
science's merits, in abstract, but rather to show examples where it's
really worked, or much better, actually do such projects ourselves. One of
the main motivators behind the piece we recently published (
http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n10/full/nchem.1149.html) was
exactly that - a real example you could point to where openness had helped
the research, and to explain why it had helped the research.

I'd also suggest it's going to be difficult to brand something like open
science. Open source software projects/products have brands, so that
poor/unwanted contributions can be cleanly separated from quality work.
That will be important for open science projects too, eventually. But I
would say we're likely to a very broad church.

One thing that will need to be addressed soon is what constitutes open
science, however. I worry some people still seem to think that occasional
blogging about one's results, based on data that have not been exhaustively
shared, counts as open science. It doesn't. For me this is a central issue
and one where discussions of branding might usefully centre. Jean-Claude
Bradley developed some logos for open notebook science a while back you
might want to look at along those lines.

I would agree that the funding agencies are important to get on board, for
a number of reasons. We heard on Tuesday our open source drug discovery
project for malaria was funded for the next 3 years (funders are the
Australian Research Council and the Medicines for Malaria Venture,
together). It's not just that this allows us to make a good job of the
project, it's also that such instances, piece by piece, make open science
(especially for drug discovery) seem slightly less nuts than it's sometimes
made out to be.

Cheers,

Mat

On 5 November 2011 23:00, <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: open-science Digest, Vol 37, Issue 4 (Open Science Kentucky)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 14:22:46 -0400
> From: Open Science Kentucky <opensciencekentucky at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [open-science] open-science Digest, Vol 37, Issue 4
> To: open-science at lists.okfn.org
> Message-ID:
>        <CAN8ChJz-LWvMq1BtK=V_cjQTh7RqRYCf1SdxxdUJYFmibdJZGQ at mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 5
> *******************************************
>

-- 
MATTHEW TODD | Senior Lecturer
School of Chemistry | Faculty of Science

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Rm 519, F11 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006
T +61 2 9351 2180  | F +61 2 9351 3329  | M +61 415 274104
E matthew.todd at sydney.edu.au  | W
http://sydney.edu.au/science/chemistry/research/todd.html

CRICOS 00026A
This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised
use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please
delete it and any attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20111105/e012a5b4/attachment.html>