User:Daniel Mietchen/Notebook/Open Science/2010/10/03

{| width="800"
 * style="background-color: #EEE"|[[Image:owwnotebook_icon.png|128px]] What would science look like if it were open?
 * style="background-color: #F2F2F2" align="center"|  |Main project page
 * style="background-color: #F2F2F2" align="center"|  |Main project page


 * colspan="2"|
 * colspan="2"|

Digitization and networking in science
See also this blog post.


 * "While scientists have gloried in the disruptive effect that the Web is having on publishers and libraries, with many fields strongly pushing open publication models, we are much more resistant to letting it be a disruptive force in the practice of our disciplines. &mdash; James Hendler"

Definitions

 * Digitization: The extent to which computers are utilized during research, in comparison to what would technically be possible.
 * Networking: The extent to which all active researchers with research interests in a given area can be reached.

Table 1: Steps of the research cycle
Read this table as "Across research fields, most of step X of the research cycle" is low/ intermediate/ high in digitization/ networking.

Table 2: Instruments, Tools, methods
Read this table as "Most of the research performed using X" is low/ intermediate/ high in digitization/ networking.

Table 3: Fields of research
Read this table as "Most of the research in the field of X" is low/ intermediate/ high in digitization/ networking.

A broader perspective

 * Why the Singularity isn't going to happen:
 * "if you're looking for a narrative that explains the future, consider this: Does the narrative promise you things that sound like religion? A world where today's problems are fixed, but no new problems have arisen? A world where human history is irrelevant? If yes, then you're in the fog of Singularity thinking.


 * But if that narrative deals with consequences, complications, and many possible outcomes, then you're getting closer to something like a potential truth."


 * }