[open-science] open access perils? (#RIP @aaronscwarz)

[Matthew Brett]

Hi

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Mr. Puneet Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 12, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Thomas Kluyver <takowl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I maintain that openness in scientific research and in political/military
>> matters are distinct issues, and it is your 'lens' that conflates them.
>
>
> Well said.
>
> I believe, assertions are politics; assertions backed with evidence are science. The problem with politics is that folks have different views and no one wants to go home agreeing with the other side. Science, on the other hand, we all can agree upon until shown otherwise. Lather, rinse, repeat.

It would be happy to believe that we can avoid the messy world of
politics and confine ourselves to the clean pure world of science.  I
guess we all know that temptation, otherwise we would be less likely
be scientists or programmers or both.

I know that some people believe that science can be more or less
completely separated from politics, prejudice and morality, but I
really don't understand how a practicing and observant scientist could
believe that.

The substantial part and relevant part of the discussion is whether it
is possible for someone to be harmed as a direct result of advocacy
for open data generally and open science in particular.

If so, that's an important fact worthy of recording, and that's the
point that I think Paola was making.

Of course, ruling any discussion of politics out of scope will mean we
can't have that discussion, because the harm arises from political
action.

Best,

Matthew