[open-science] Constructive and positive discussions

[Lee Worden]

+1.

> Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 11:06:53 -0700
> From: Heather Morrison<hgmorris at sfu.ca>
> Subject: Re: [open-science] Constructive and positive discussions
>
> It is a fact that OBR is conducting a survey with a preamble that says
> the study is being conducted by a student-led organization and fine
> print that says that the study has been commissioned by industry.
>
> As Florence points out, this is not open science. This is "science"
> conducted by industry under the guise of students. This is an
> important topic. The results of this survey could very well be
> presented in the context of a public policy discussion, and they could
> be presented as the student perspective. To do this, all the industry
> sponsor needs to do is copy and paste from the preamble of the survey.
>
> If Tom & Peter have concerns about the tone of the discussion, it
> would be appropriate to point out that responding to criticism by
> alleging that your critic is crazy is not appropriate. I am critiquing
> the survey and the approach in a manner that is very appropriate from
> an academic standpoint, not attacking anyone personally. While I have
> serious concerns about this approach, I have no issues with Daniel or
> Mehmet personally and am inviting them to engage in the discussion.
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison
>
> On 7-Apr-13, at 8:46 AM, Tom Morris wrote:
>
>> >On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Peter Murray-Rust<pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >the intended spirit of this list ... IMO is to develop a
>> >constructive approach to Open Science. I am disappointed that there
>> >has been a public accusation of lying - ...
>> >
>> >Peter
>> >(OKFN Advisory Board)
>> >
>> >I'd definitely like to see the discussions on this list become more
>> >constructive.  There seems to be a presumption of evil/guilt for
>> >entire classes of organizations and people with a complementary
>> >presumption of sainthood for anyone wears an academic mantle.
>> >
>> >Given that the topic of the list is nominally science, it'd be great
>> >to see discussion driven by actual facts.
>> >
>> >For those parties who's attitudes and practices we're actively
>> >trying to change, there are many different tactics that can be
>> >used.  Continual browbeating is not necessarily the most effective
>> >(or effective at all, in many cases).  Persuasion comes in many more
>> >subtle forms which can be incredibly effective when used well.
>> >
>> >Tom
>>