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
- Articles published on a monthly schedule concurrent with a physical journal printing --> Articles published whenever they are accepted and posted in online format.
- Articles collected into meaningful collections by specialty journals --> articles aggregated by search engines, etc
- (e.g. when was the last time you found a paper by perusing a specific journal in a field rather than searching Pubmed. Journal seems to be losing role of information aggregator)
- Pubmed -->Faculty of 1000. Faculty of 100 gathers papers by topic and allows people to post evaluation to them. Aggregation and feedback although not free access I don't believe.
- Individual/lab's private protocols --> Protocols online People post protocols, others can post reviews of those protocols. Its html format makes it more difficult to use than OWW and it features ads(ense) heavily but still worthy of mention
Ideas for future Science2.0 projects
(e.g. Slashdot type commenting on aricles/hypothesis, etc.)
- Online lab notebook, easily accessible from everywhere, easily searchable. Easy to insert raw data. As data comes off a machine, it goes directly into notebook.
- All lab equipment actually becomes network capable and not requiring a dedicated computer to run. Randy is actually considering buying a robot that is programmed on a computer and transferred to it via a memory card.
- As equipment becomes network-aware, people can share their equipment with people around the world. I no longer can only borrow equipment time from the group down the hall, but from anyone in the world.
- Providing these resources will open access to science to a much wider range of people.
- 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
- Standardizing/sharing 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, at home, at a conference etc. See on-line lab notebook above.
Butting heads
Getting 'scooped'
When we try and sell 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:
- the project is shared online, someone steals the idea and publishes before you without ever mentioning they are working on the project. Publications (science currency) for you = 0
- 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). Also, a competitor steals one of the ideas and beats you to the punch. Science currency = 4-1 = 3.
- You keep information to yourself and publish your work Science currency = 1.
What this illustrates is that the question is whether you think the probability of scenario (2)/(1) > 1. This also approximates one of O’reilly’s web 2.0 principles “The service gets better the more people use it,” since the more people that buy into this model the higher (2)/(1) gets. We think (2) / (1) is already > 1, however we’re naïve graduate students. However, if this is true ‘natural selection’ will lead those adopting an open approach to generate more science currency and 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
