[open-science] Open Science Sweden
simone.codeluppi at gmail.com
Tue Oct 1 17:22:44 UTC 2013
thanks a lot for the answer and for the explanations.
I fully agree with you. My thoughts fall more in the open knowledge
category. I will try to find my way in OKF and identify which group will
reflect more my ideas and where I can contribute the most. I am still
trying to get more informed and have a clearer path on how to transform
some of the thoughts I have been developing in the past year in actions.
The idea of a hack day is great and I will look into CrowdCrafting app....I
never heard about it but will look into it right away!
Thanks a lot!!!
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Greetings Simone,
> I love your vision and enthusiasm.
> Breaking new ground is a hard road but with the help of community it is
> much easier. Every year the number of like-minded people grows. I suggest
> you concentrate on things where you can see a (clear?) way forward and
> where you can make useful progress.
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Jenny Molloy <jenny.molloy at okfn.org>wrote:
>> Hi All
>> I'd like to introduce you to Simone, who is reigniting activity over at
>> the Stockholm Open Science group (founded by Egon Willighagen) and hopes to
>> get local open science meetups and discussions taking place in Sweden.
> Egon has been magnificent - doing this for nearly ten years (he worked
> with us in Cambridge in ca 2003 I think). He's been developing the semantic
> concept in science (bio /chem).
> 7 years ago we founded the Blue Obelisk in chemistry to develop Open Data,
> Open Standards, Open Source (ODOSOS) and that's quite a useful vision for a
> lot of science. Jean-Claude Bradley and MatTodd have extended this to open
> Notebook Science where the experiments are published as soon as they are
> carried out. Not every one is able to do that.
>> I am Simone, senior post-doc at the department of medical biochemistry
>> and biophysics at Karolinska Institutet.
>> I decided to join this group in order to promote awareness toward OPEN
>> ACCESS. This concept has been pioneered in the computer community and
>> resulted in amazing progresses that affected not only the computer
>> community itself but the all world. In science open access found his way in
>> astronomy, particle physics and genomics.
> Open Access technically refers only to scholarly publications and making
> them available on the Internet. There's relatively little most people can
> do other than to choose to publish in existing OA journals or self-archive
> their papers. Some very energetic ones start OA journals and others get
> involved in politics. OA has been going on for over 10 years. Generally
> data is a separate area, Open Data
>> I believe that a similar approach should be taken in many more branches
>> of science, especially in the medical field.
> I suspect your interest is broader than OA and I'd suggest it falls under
> Open Knowledge
>> I know is not a simple task and in order to have such a big change, we
>> need to develop a new "scientific method" and slowly start a scientific
>> revolution. In order to be effectively able to share information we need to
>> change our way to do science, the way through which scientist are evaluated
>> and also how funding are distributed. I know it is a complex issue but we
>> need to start somewhere. I believe that we need to work on it from the
>> 'inside' and start to build from the ground up a new way to do science.
>> Data generation, data crunching and even the classical "wet bench" science
>> changed a lot in the past few decades, however the way we are judged, we
>> get grants and communicate our research to the outside world is stacked in
>> the past. Now it is time to roll up our sleeves and start to do something.
> Yes. This revolution is starting, but it's still very small.
>> Even if in many countries the economical crisis is hitting science really
>> hard, here in Sweden there is still the opportunity to be founded and do
>> science. The government has been pouring money in rich data projects such
>> as Scilife labs. VR is offering quite a few start-up grants and many
>> private foundations are investing in research. So I believe that this is a
>> good time to start to work in changing the way "we do science", to make
>> founding agencies aware that is "ok" to have full access to the data
>> generated with their founding and that by sharing we can do bigger jumps
>> and progress faster. Because I am a scientist I know that not everything we
>> do generate a figure in a final report, much of the work is saved in some
>> external HD for "who knows how long". We should be able to open up this HD,
>> share the negative data (of course getting credit for them) so if another
>> scientist will decide to follow a similar path, he or she will not have to
>> "re-invent" the wheel and deal with the same issues we previously
> The funders are now generally aware of Open Science and it's worth seeing
> if they have programs (these will probably be small). Open Science
> overlaps with Citizen Science where people outside traditional academia are
> involved.(probably most OS is CS, but not necessarily the reverse).
> Many of find our own speciality in OKF and you might want to discuss ideas
> on the list. It can also be very useful to run hack days - these are fun,
> only require a room and perhaps some pizza. They are a mixture of
> discussion and hacking information/software, though we are moving towards
> physical objects as well ("maker"). You might want to consider building a
> CrowdCrafting app...
>> Sorry for this long, long post.
> Not at all
>> There is a lot that need to be fixed and polished and I strongly
>> believe that we as scientist have to start this new scientific revolution.
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science