[open-science] Marketing goals

• Previous message: [open-science] Marketing goals
• Next message: [open-science] open-science Digest, Vol 37, Issue 4
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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.

• Previous message: [open-science] Marketing goals
• Next message: [open-science] open-science Digest, Vol 37, Issue 4
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]