Science 2.0/Brainstorming

This page will be a discussion on applying the principles of Web 2.0 to scientific communication. I wrote up this page just to get the conversation going, please add categories (or rename it :). Kathleen's open science comments from her soapbox are a good starting place as well. Also, our previous discussion on future approaches to publishing.

Science 1.0->2.0

The idea here is to identify scientific structures that resemble the conventional web (Web1.0), and imagine suggestions – however, wild -- for how Web 2.0-type concepts could be used to come up with new structures in science that provide that service better, faster, or cheaper As an example of this here are the analogies from the O'Reilly Web 2.0 article:

• Web1.0-->Web2.0
• Britannica Online-->Wikipedia
• directories (taxonomy)-->tagging ("folksonomy")
• mp3.com-->Napster
• Akamai-->BitTorrent

Examples in science

• Regularly scheduled printing of journal issues --> Continuous release of articles in online format.
  • Example: Nature --> Molecular Systems Biology
• Subscription-based journals --> Open access journals
  • Example: Nature --> Molecular Systems Biology
• Peer-reviewed specialty journals --> Articles aggregated and ranked by search engines (Google style) or via a catalog and user review (Amazon style)
  • Example: Pubmed --> Faculty of 1000.
    Faculty of 1000 gathers papers by topic and allows people to post evaluation to them. Aggregation and feedback services are not offered although it does not appear to be open access.
• Maintenance of static protocols in labs shared via reference texts -> Online sharing of protocols
  • Example: Individuals' and labs' private protocols --> Protocols Online
    People post protocols, others can post reviews of those protocols.
  • Example: Molecular Cloning --> OpenWetWare protocols
    OpenWetWare permits anyone to share, edit and annotate protocols.
• Publishing methods --> Sharing materials
  • Example: Methods papers --> Caltech's foundry for microfluidic chips
• Materials collections --> Materials registries
  • Example: Strain collections --> MIT Registry of Standard Biological Parts
    The Registry permits users to design, obtain, test, and annotate parts. The users who design parts do not necessarily have to be the ones who synthesize the parts. It enables anyone to post comments about any part. Eventually the Registry would like to move to a web of registries based in multiple locations to further decentralize and make the engineering of new and existing parts easier.

Ideas for future Science2.0 projects

• Slashdot for scientific articles, ideas
• Online lab notebooks
  • Accessible from everywhere
  • Searchable
  • Referencable
  • Equipment-friendly: as data comes off a machine, it goes directly into notebook.
• Network- or internet-friendly lab equipment
  • All lab equipment actually becomes operable over the web and therefore does not require a dedicated computer to run. (Note that Randy is actually considering buying a robot that is programmed on a computer and transferred to it via a memory card.)
  • Permits sharing of equipment across the world opening up science to a wider rangle of people.
  • Requires standardization of communication protocols.
• Conference posters being used as an overview and an advertisement for a fuller description/discussion of a project on OWW rather than an end in themselves. Most people have web-access at conferences, read a poster you like, check the OWW page, go back for a fuller discussion with the author in person or online.

OWW as an ongoing 'Science 2.0' experiment

OpenWetWare is good example of Web2.0 meets science, and even though it hasn't been around long I think it already has provided some "in the trenches"-type information about where Web2.0 will mesh with traditional scientific research approaches and where it will butt heads.

Meshing

• Standardization and sharing of protocols. See DNA Ligation.
• Makes information more accessible. Not only is my information (i.e. lab notebook) accessible to others but it is accessible to me from anywhere. See online lab notebook above.

Butting heads

Getting 'scooped'

When we try and promote OpenWetWare to people one of the most common responses is “if I post my project details there I will be scooped.” We usually ask that they consider a few scenarios:

1. The project is shared online and someone steals the idea and publishes before you without ever mentioning they are working on the project. Publications (science currency) = 0.
2. The project is shared online, several people email you saying it looks cool, you push those connections and establish 4 new research directions. One of which is even more productive than the original direction. Also, a competitor steals one of the ideas and beats you to the punch. Science currency = 4-1 = 3.
3. You keep information to yourself and publish your work. Science currency = 1.

What this example illustrates is that the question is whether you think the probability of scenario P(2)/P(1) > 1. This also approximates one of the Web 2.0 principles “the service gets better the more people use it,” since the more people that buy into this model the higher P(2)/P(1) gets. We think P(2)/P(1) is already > 1, however we’re naïve graduate students. However, if we're right than ‘natural selection’ will lead those adopting an open approach to science to generate more science currency and thereby outcompete those taking approach (3).

Looking unprofessional

There is a concern that "posting non-polished, uncompleted research/documents online will make the lab appear unprofessional." The counter argument is that having a rapidly updated space will make the lab appear alive and dynamic. Anyone have experiences one way or the other on this? I've been approached twice now at conferences by people who had seen my stuff on the wiki and their response was pretty positive. Also, I think we've had more post-doc applications to the lab since the wiki has gone up as well...

Others

Other common concerns (permissions, vandalism, "own space") provided here