The module on Open Science in Wiley's course seemed to me an
amalgamation of all the other "open" topics and concepts covered in the
course thus far.
There are also some very familiar and consistent
themes in the conversation about Open Science: there are many and varied
views about what, exactly, is meant by "open science;" there are many
different applications of "open science," and there are quite a few
barriers to the implementation of "open science."
Open Science was
the first module in the course during which I started to feel really
unsure about this whole "open" thing. Up to now, everything sounded just
great. Yes, let's share resources and educational content! Yes, let's
allow each other to build on and improve our work! Yes, let's make
resources cheaper and more accessible to anyone interested!
And
then I read about Open Science. To be clear, I still very much
appreciate the idea of openness as it applies to science, but this topic
seems more complicated than a few of the others Wiley approaches. For
the first time in the course (for me, anyway), the concept of
"openness" is transposed over a really specific topic, and that's when
things really start to fall apart. There seem to be more questions than
answers when it comes to Open Science.
As with any other community
of experts, scientists belong to a culture all their own. The culture
of science promotes some fairly conservative values about sharing
information. In fact, according to Michael Nielsen in his speech at TEDx Waterloo
in April, 2011, traditional scientists actually look down on sharing.
There is no prestige to be had from sharing your data with someone else.
Data is considered a highly personal, sometimes even secretive aspect
of scientific exploration. As a result, science tends to occur in
isolation, with scientists hording sets of data for their own use, and
hiding their work from each other.
Certainly, there have been some
changes and shifts in the culture of science over the centuries. Again,
back in the 15th Century, the printing press comes on to the scene and
changes everything, even science. For the first time ever, scientific
endeavors can be widely communicated and acknowledged. But even with
that information revolution, the mores and values of the community of
science didn't change much. Typically, scientific results are shared by
way of professional publications and academic journals. Results are
achieved when specific data or sets of data are manipulated in specific
ways (can you tell I'm not a scientist?). So, while there is value to
the results of scientific exploration, what's not being shared is data.
Scientists do not like to share their data, and there's is no incentive
for them to do so. In fact, there are drawbacks, which must be obvious
at this point - they must not like to share for a good reason, right?
Right. If they share their data, they give someone else - a peer, a
competitor, a colleague - the opportunity to change, mix, or even damage
their work (Bissell and Kirn, Open Science and OER: Where Do They Intersect? 2011).
In
order for science to begin to entertain the idea of sharing, Nielsen
says we need to make scientists see sharing as part of their job, and we
need to reward them for it. Providing incentives to share, promoting
conversations about the values of sharing - these all need to happen in
order for science to look upon "openness" as a truly worthwhile
endeavor.
According to the Science Commons,
there are several dominating principles that must be followed by
institutions or individuals, in order to participate in Open Science.
Institutions, organizations and people must:
- Provide Open Access to Literature from Funded Research,
- Provide Access to Research Tools from Funded Research,
- Put Data from Funded Research in the Public Domain, and
- Make Investments in Open Cyberinfrastructures.
What's
most confusing and thought-provoking to me about Open Science is the
global relevance of science in general. Science affects every aspect of
our lives as human beings. It shapes our world in very specific and
influential ways. So, in that sense, the culture of science as it is
now, is a global problem. Scientists all over the world are potentially
duplicating each others efforts and results, redoing each others' work
and research. Wouldn't it make more sense - to everyone, not just
scientists - to share? Share the work, the data, the results; share the
prestige, the fame, the failure? Without sharing the work, how much time
are we losing, in the battle against things like cancer, diabetes, HIV?
These are diseases that affect everyone, everywhere. Why wouldn't the
scientific community want to contribute to each others' work and
knowledge? Wouldn't societies as a whole stand to gain more through that
type of sharing than any one scientist could lose?
Well, it might
make sense, and we might gain more as a society if science were more
open, but it's not happening - not now, and not for a while - if ever.
The other troubling part of implementing Open Science is the sub-concept
of "Open data." Data, in and of itself, drives much of what science is
and means and does. And it's the data - what it can do, what it can
mean, and what it can change - that's so controversial in this context.
Let's say, for example, an experiment leads to the discovery of a
biological warfare method. If we are applying the principles listed at
the Science Commons, and this data is in the public domain, accessible
by way of technology, what harm can then be done if the data were to be
found and used by someone who, let's say, isn't a scientist, or someone
who doesn't have an altruistic purpose in mind? If this data were to
fall into the hands of someone who wants to cause other people harm,
using this data to recreate the biological warfare method is a possible
outcome. Application of the result may be detrimental to society - how
much of society, I can't say, but one or more people/places could be
negatively affected. So clearly there is an ethical concern to "open
data," as it's understood in the context of open science.
However
negative I may sound towards Open Science, in some ways I do support it,
and I do understand its value. And I think behind any and all of these
movements towards being open, we do recognize that technology affords us
connections to a global community that we can all participate in if we
choose to, and that's something that was never possible before.
Technology can remove all sorts of barriers, but it can also raise a lot
of questions.
While technology advances at a rapid pace,
obviously the evolution of humanity moves at a slower clip. All these
ideas and concepts are great, but when taken in context, are pretty
radical. Sure, we have the technology and the desire to see what's
possible to achieve with it, but really, we are trying to change
longstanding cultural norms. That will take time, and it will require
fundamental changes to the culture and professional field of science.
No comments:
Post a Comment