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

Sat Nov 5 21:03:15 UTC 2011

I agree with several points in Mat's post.

One thing that will need to be addressed soon is what constitutes open
> science, however.

Yes. This is critical. "Open" can be applied to static information and
dynamic processes, to philosophy, intent, labelling. I have blogged several
times abou how "Open" is used as a fuzzy feelgood marketing label.

I also think that science is too broad for "Open" - it needs to be broken
into different areas. Thus I started a page on Wikipedia on "Open Data"
which was science oriented and it was, I think usefully, aliased to "Open
Science Data". Similarly Jean-Claude Bradely started "Open Science" - I
think - to indicate his process of publishing experiements as they were
done, and this was quickly relabelled "Open Notebook Science". So I think
the area is too broad for a single label.

The success of the Open Source movement is that it relates simply to
licences.This is amechanism which is simple to understand and use as a
measure. There are OSI-compliant licences and they are rigorously vetted.

By contrast the Open Access movement cannot agree what is meant - in
practice - by Open. There is "green" and "gold" - neither of which are
rigorously defined. They are useful but there is no consistency of
practice. In particular the rights of re-use are poorly defined.

We deliberately avoided this in Panton and spent a long time formulating a
definition and associated practice. "You have to do this and this" for your
material to be accepted as Open Data.There is no mention (deliberately) of
the complete scientific process - there is a notional point-of-publication
where Panton becomes applicable.

Our mantra in the Blue Obelisk ("Open" for chemistry software and data) is:
"Open Data, Open Standards, Open Source".

Data and Source are well defined and implentable. "Open Standards" drew a
lot of discussion because it was not defined. Some felt that a published
proprietary standard was open, and that a non-proprietary standard, even
under an OKD-compliant licence, was only a standard if the means of
creating the standard was democratic (e.g. anyone could alter the
standard). Not surprisingly we have let this discussion run its course and
indeed our efforts are to writing tools and validators (as Mat has
suggested). FWIW I am now working on "Open computational chemistry". This
will consist of having at least one completely Open Source suite (e.g.
NWChem under Quixote), and that the data are Panton-compliant and that we
use "Open Standards" without making too much fuss at present. But questions
as to "when" the process should become open are currently left to
individuals and projects.

> 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.
>

First,  congratulations Mat.  But also to confirm that funding agencies,
publishers, need clear mechanistic guidelines for "Open"

>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>
>

-- 
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/20111105/001774e4/attachment-0001.html>