Michael Nielsen and the open science revolution

@IleneDawn tweeted a link to an interesting video featureing Michael Nielsen, a pioneer in quantum computing and author of the recently published “Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science.” (Just purchased for my nook!) This is a timely find, following up on my recent post aiming to explore novel or interesting ways to integrate twitter into the classroom.

Nielsen opens his talk using the example of the polymath project, which utilizes a blog to engage a large community of mathematicians in solving difficult problems in the blog’s comment section. This social problem solving endeavor reminds me of another successful attempt used in biology: Foldit. Foldit is an online video game where participants attempt to fold proteins to the best of their ability.  The efficacy of this approach has led to papers published in peer-reviewed journals such as PNAS. These examples support the claim that social networks can provide a powerful tool in facilitating communal problem solving.

One major drawback to the success of this approach that Nielsen addresses in his talk is active participation in these projects. He notes that despite great enthusiasm for these projects, the greatest thinkers in a given field fail to contribute, leaving sites associated with open science projects “virtual ghost towns.” Nielsen provides one example of a great success that spawned a data-sharing revolution in the field of molecular biology.

Genebank originally encountered the lack of contribution that many of these open science endeavors face. In 1996, leading molecular biologists met in Bermuda to address ways in which they could encourage scientist to share their sequence data with the online community.  From this meeting, they came up with two main principles: 1) “That once human genetic data is taken in the lab, it should be immediately uploaded to a site like genebank;” and 2) “That this data would be in the public domain.” These principles one their own may not have been sufficient to encourage participation; fortunately, national funding organizations such as NIH supported this initiative and wrote it into policy.

What Nielsen calls for, ultimately, is an open science revolution. He argues that scientists currently lack rewards to shift some of their valuable time to participating in open science programs. The drive to publish their own research and to keep secret their most important findings prevents them from dispersing information in a public way or posing problems for a community to solve. Nielsen argues that this revolution in the culture of science is not unlike the revolution that took place with the advent of scientific journals. What we need to do, as a scientific community, is support this revolution and encourage those who are compelled to participate in it.  He provides three suggestions for moving in this direction:

1) Get involved in an open science project.

2) Start an open science program – Adopt currently available approaches to open science. If more ambitious, develop novel ways to disperse and collect scientific information, or explore novel venues for community problem solving.

3) Give credit to colleagues practicing open science – Scientists may currently be discouraged by peers from this new mode of practicing science. One of the minor incentives for exploring these new technologies is simply peer support.

Now to think of how we, as a community of scientists, can best employ these technologies in our own fields. (And to read Nielsen’s book!)

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Michael Nielsen and the open science revolution

Add yours

  1. Wow. Really cool to hear this line of argument from a biological sciences perspective, because the “openness revolution” has lit some kind of fire for me ever since I dropped by this conference (http://mobilityshifts.org/) and saw a talk by the guy who wrote this (http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=10611&ttype=2).

    Here’s a theory I’m toying with:
    The rising generation of academics isn’t going to keep putting up with the kinds of “silos” and insularity that have evolved within universities. We’ve got students coming in who accept networked technologies (and Pirate Bay and all that great stuff) as a given. The way we “do disciplines” and share knowledge is bound to change, right? Or if it doesn’t, then we’ll be missing a HUGE opportunity.

    The openness is coming! (hope hope) Glad to hear that science wants it, too.

  2. Thank you once again Linkalis for your continued contributions to this nascent blog. Really great contributions and some helpful links (even though you are adding to my ever-growing reading list).

    I think that your theory is largely correct, in that these technologies are an integral part of our culture now and embracing them for this type of cultural change comes naturally to emerging scientists. Many may even argue that integrating blogging, twitter, etc. into our work is becoming essential.

    That being said, I think that many barriers (some cultural as addressed above) remain. I think something to consider is what aspects of scientific activity can be socialized as opposed to those parts of scientific activity are not amenable to a social approach. Perhaps defining this can, in fact, lead to more effective implementation of these technologies where it is possible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: