Science has managed yet another intersection with our everyday lives (and Aliquot loves these intersections). More and more, research findings and fundings are becoming open-access, aka: transparent, available, and closer to society.
Researchers have begun publishing their findings (even high-impact findings that could otherwise go to Nature or Science, prestigious journals requiring expensive subscriptions or pay-per-article fees) in open-access journals, such as PLOS One and PLOS Biology. These findings, in their original, data-laden forms, are thereby available to the public in their entirety, removing the requirement for a journalistic filter in order to become public knowledge.
"Open-Science" now also includes new funding streams to cover research costs, removing the grant-writing hindrance of fitting research aims into the narrow scope of federal funding agencies such as NIH or NSF, or of myopic private foundations focused on a single disease or disorder. In the spirit of Kickstarter, some scientists are looking to crowd-sourcing to fund their orphaned projects, which lack a grant proposal home. These difficult-to-fund, but scientifically promising, projects may include such essential research as sleep, sex, or other basic biology not currently covered by the scope of available funding sources (ie: NIH funding, one of the largest sources of federal scientific funding, requires a direct link to human health in the experimental goals, thereby eliminating funding of basic processes such as sleep or sex).
Open Science (or Open-Source Science) also facilitates controversial research, cutting-edge experiments, or other science that has trouble getting off the ground (but just like most pursuits, this high risk may often result in high pay-off). While we all want scientific research to be fruitful, leading to a deeper understanding of our world, or cures for diseases, 'safe science' is the norm these days for funding agencies. However, safe science stifles creativity and limits the possibilities of scientific advancement. Funding of certain high-risk, creative projects, even those not directly linked to NASA or NIH goals, deserve funding consideration from some source. The concept of Open Science helps these goals become possible.
Open Science also refers to a new era of collaboration among scientists, where, for instance, a novel tool or reagent may be patented by the researcher who first creates or discovers it, but instead of turning a profit, that researcher may decide to 'hand out' the reagent or tool to colleagues around the world, thereby sparking a flurry of new data and quick publications -- a faster, though less lucrative, route to new knowledge or a cure. All the while, the findings may be deposited into public databases, open-access journals, or other means of making the research transparent and accessible to the public.
This movement will certainly have its detractors: those who do seek monetary gain from their science, or others who fear being 'scooped' by competitors in the race for an experimental finding. Still others may wish to curb the reach of open-science so as to prevent journal reviewers from being unmasked, an extent of transparency which may actually sabotage a process of ensuring scientific rigor. But taken together, I find this movement to be inspiring and representative of today's ultra-networked, open society. I'm staying tuned for the next big discoveries to come out of Open Science.
For more:
The Open Source Science Project
An article on open science and non-profit pharmaceutical companies
** Image taken from this fantastic blog post on Open Science
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Michael Steinberg
doctorwascher
Paul Hinrichs
Mary Elizabeth Williams
Cary Tennis
Dave Cullen
Salon.com
Comments