[open-science] Danes step away from patenting in favour of ?open science? | THE News

Matthew Todd matthew.todd at sydney.edu.au
Thu Aug 10 13:27:08 UTC 2017


Yes indeed "no patents" has been one of Open Source Malaria's six laws since 2011. 

http://www.thesynapticleap.org/node/343

I've found it has been helpful over the years to have absolute clarity on that position, so that everyone is on the same page. By contrast a term like "open innovation" is now too nebulous on the secrecy issue.

M


--
MATTHEW TODD | Associate Professor
School of Chemistry | Faculty of Science

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Rm 517, 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/people/matthew.todd.php
W http://opensourcemalaria.org/ | W http://opensourcepharma.net/

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.

________________________________________
From: open-science [open-science-bounces at lists.okfn.org] on behalf of open-science-request at lists.okfn.org [open-science-request at lists.okfn.org]
Sent: Thursday, 10 August 2017 10:00 PM
To: open-science at lists.okfn.org
Subject: open-science Digest, Vol 1012, Issue 1

Send open-science mailing list submissions to
        open-science at lists.okfn.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://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. Danes step away from patenting in favour of ?open science? |
      THE News (Heather Morrison)
   2. Re: Danes step away from patenting in favour of ?open
      science? | THE News (Daniel Mietchen)
   3. Re: Danes step away from patenting in favour of ?open
      science? | THE News (Luc Henry)
   4. Re: Danes step away from patenting in favour of ?open
      science? | THE News (Peter Murray-Rust)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 01:45:45 +0000
From: Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>
To: open-science <open-science at lists.okfn.org>
Subject: [open-science] Danes step away from patenting in favour of
        ?open science? | THE News
Message-ID: <d5551386eeb44eac87c11081e766f475 at uottawa.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Patent-free research seems a logical step for open science - comments? Does anyone know of any other initiatives like this?

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/danes-step-away-patenting-favour-open-science

best,

Heather Morrison

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20170810/2ca11262/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 04:55:15 +0200
From: Daniel Mietchen <daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com>
To: Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>
Cc: open-science <open-science at lists.okfn.org>
Subject: Re: [open-science] Danes step away from patenting in favour
        of ?open science? | THE News
Message-ID:
        <CAN6n2b2DS04RaNSp4grsEPn4hYchgbbcQxZ4X=CA5ybaSQwEXA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

The Montreal Neurological Institute has also dropped institutional
support for patents in favour of open science:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001259
http://www.mcgill.ca/neuro/open-science-0
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/in-montreal-a-wee-opening-in-the-closed-world-of-science-research/article33372907/

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:45 AM, Heather Morrison
<Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:
> Patent-free research seems a logical step for open science - comments? Does
> anyone know of any other initiatives like this?
>
> https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/danes-step-away-patenting-favour-open-science
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:45:18 +0200
From: Luc Henry <luc.henry at hackuarium.ch>
To: Daniel Mietchen <daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com>
Cc: open-science <open-science at lists.okfn.org>
Subject: Re: [open-science] Danes step away from patenting in favour
        of ?open science? | THE News
Message-ID:
        <CAGxAoqrT9M-G6+w1j3UPdxFy=tgRnxAqLz0-_D7Tm=NoetC7rg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear Heather, dear all,

Indeed, it is an interesting step towards open source science:
http://www.e-pages.dk/aarhusuniversitet/1618/html5/

The Structural Genomic Consortium (SGC) has had this policy for a long time
now: http://www.thesgc.org/openaccess/about/details

The Montreal Neurological Institute (aka The Neuro at McGill) mentioned by
Daniel has been heavily inspired by the SGC that was founded at the
University of Toronto.

I think we should carefully, but seriously, consider open source as an
important part of open science, but it is not the panacea. From what I
observe, it works in precompetitive research, and it works with
technologies that are not the core business of an industry. Some argue that
generous licensing of a patented technology can bring more impact than open
sourcing it.

If anyone knows of any analysis on the topic, I would love to hear about it.

L.

On 10 August 2017 at 04:55, Daniel Mietchen <daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com>
wrote:

> The Montreal Neurological Institute has also dropped institutional
> support for patents in favour of open science:
> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001259
> http://www.mcgill.ca/neuro/open-science-0
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/in-montreal-a-wee-
> opening-in-the-closed-world-of-science-research/article33372907/
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:45 AM, Heather Morrison
> <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:
> > Patent-free research seems a logical step for open science - comments?
> Does
> > anyone know of any other initiatives like this?
> >
> > https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/danes-step-away-patenting-
> favour-open-science
> >
> > best,
> >
> > Heather Morrison
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-science mailing list
> > open-science at lists.okfn.org
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
> >
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20170810/1a328a38/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:03:38 +0100
From: Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
To: Luc Henry <luc.henry at hackuarium.ch>
Cc: open-science <open-science at lists.okfn.org>
Subject: Re: [open-science] Danes step away from patenting in favour
        of ?open science? | THE News
Message-ID:
        <CAD2k14PTfQqWhefRCG+Rkh_j4qmszvyh6WoPs0Hu3knckYaD-A at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Thanks all,
The term "Open Science" is too broad to be operationally useful - it is an
aspiration and an umbrella for many different components and practices.

When Jean-Claude Bradley was developing his open approach he started to use
"Open Science". I counselled him that this was so broad that it would not
be able to describe what he was doing and wanted to see. He accepted this
and coined the term "Open Notebook Science" [1] which I think has worked
out extremely well.
I and my colleagues in contentmine.org practice ONS - see for example
https://riojournal.com/article/13589/ where Ross Mounce and I computed a
microbial supertree and recorded all our work as we did it. The complete
ONS log is at
http://discuss.contentmine.org/t/error-analysis-in-ami-phylo/116 .

My example of leading ONS is chemistry, opensourcemalaria.org by Mat Todd
and colleagues.

Generally Open Science on bits (knowledge, simulations) is much easier than
Open Science on atoms (chemistry, medicine, etc.) . Open Science based
solely on bits is fundamentally sharable and reproducible (although this is
hard at present because of the lack of tools - no one in academia values
the creation of good tools). But unless all the bits are completely
free-to-use, free-to-reuse, free-to-redistribute then it is impossible
(sic) to do knowledge-based Open Science. ContentMine+Wikimedia have
created WikiFactMine [2]- which reads upwards of 1000 papers every day, but
we can *only* use the CC BY (SA), CC0 papers which limits us to ca 10% of
scholarly knowledge. Heather Piwowar and Jason Priem showed very recently
that ca 50% of the modern "Open Access" literature is not free-to-reuse.
This is a serious loss

The primary justifiable restraints on re-use of knowledge come with
higher-level constraints such as privacy, human rights and protection of
critical resources (e.g. animals and plants).

Atoms are much harder. They cannot be replicated so in many subjects
reproducibility is very hard. In some cases (astronomy, particle physics)
it is possible for the world to share the use and outputs of major
scientific instruments. But most instruments, reagents, animals, etc. are
not easily sharable and depend on (at least) the agreement on community
standards for assessment of identity and quality.
Among the Open issues (where reproducibility is a major problem) are:

* Open materials transfer agreements
* Open hardware designs and licences
* Open organisms

Returning to patents - I completely agree that in many sciences -
especially biosciences - over-patenting ("thickets") is a very serious
problem. But we need defences and not patenting may be a problem as patent
trolls and others can forbid scientists to use their own inventions. My
Shuttleworth colleague Catharina Maracke has been exploring Open patents as
a defensive measure against this maximalism.

P.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_notebook_science
[2]
https://www.slideshare.net/petermurrayrust/wikifactmine-for-plant-chemistry

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Luc Henry <luc.henry at hackuarium.ch> wrote:

> Dear Heather, dear all,
>
> Indeed, it is an interesting step towards open source science:
> http://www.e-pages.dk/aarhusuniversitet/1618/html5/
>
> The Structural Genomic Consortium (SGC) has had this policy for a long
> time now: http://www.thesgc.org/openaccess/about/details
>
> The Montreal Neurological Institute (aka The Neuro at McGill) mentioned by
> Daniel has been heavily inspired by the SGC that was founded at the
> University of Toronto.
>
> I think we should carefully, but seriously, consider open source as an
> important part of open science, but it is not the panacea. From what I
> observe, it works in precompetitive research, and it works with
> technologies that are not the core business of an industry. Some argue that
> generous licensing of a patented technology can bring more impact than open
> sourcing it.
>
> If anyone knows of any analysis on the topic, I would love to hear about
> it.
>
> L.
>
> On 10 August 2017 at 04:55, Daniel Mietchen <daniel.mietchen at googlemail.
> com> wrote:
>
>> The Montreal Neurological Institute has also dropped institutional
>> support for patents in favour of open science:
>> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001259
>> http://www.mcgill.ca/neuro/open-science-0
>> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/in-montreal-a-wee-op
>> ening-in-the-closed-world-of-science-research/article33372907/
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:45 AM, Heather Morrison
>> <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:
>> > Patent-free research seems a logical step for open science - comments?
>> Does
>> > anyone know of any other initiatives like this?
>> >
>> > https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/danes-step-away-
>> patenting-favour-open-science
>> >
>> > best,
>> >
>> > Heather Morrison
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > open-science mailing list
>> > open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>
>


--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. 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/20170810/6cc281e7/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
open-science mailing list
open-science at lists.okfn.org
https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science


------------------------------

End of open-science Digest, Vol 1012, Issue 1
*********************************************






More information about the open-science mailing list