On Research Institutions and Corporate Interests

Stephen Cass dropped this into my submissions box last week, and he figured all of you might be interested in this editorial regarding research institutes, corporate interests and how this relationship may develop in the future. He writes, "Freely available software, developed by researchers, is good for science and keeps commercial companies on their toes. In an era of quasi-monopolies, research institutions should encourage it." Intrigued? Read the article below and think about ways in which we can answer this question: What can we do to we keep researchers in the Open Source community and not lose them (and their science) to the Corporate World where their breakthroughs will become another piece of "Intellectual Property"?

The following is an Editorial which appeared in the Jan. 20 issue of Nature Journal. Reprinted here with permission:

In Praise of Open Source Software

"Imagine how the Web might look today had it been invented by Microsoft and made proprietary, rather than at the European Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERN), where it was made available free. Scientists tinkering with computers to create tools for their research for no profit have underpinned the computer revolution. The bounds of supercomputing are being pushed back by hugely demanding challenges, such as protein folding and the cosmos; many of the pioneers of the Internet are not Internet millionaires, but are still labouring in their laboratories.

The profit motive, and the investments that go with it, are often essential. The scrappy, early 'Mosaic' browser designed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois only took off when some of the scientists who invented it went on to set up Netscape. But the abuse of commercial monopolies is also too evident, with much of the world having been held hostage to the dismal operating system DOS for more than a decade.

This issue -- providing equitable access to all scientists and not just the richest -- is about to become critical as companies rush to build bioinformatic tools for genomics. Tools that add value to genome data are to be welcomed, but as the licensing strategy being adopted by Celera Genomics becomes clear, it gives new grounds for wariness. Unfortunately, restrictive material-transfer agreements are also becoming the rule even in publicly funded institutions. While academic research centres are an important cradle for industrial development, it is crucial that the not-for-profit motive should be respected when the needs of research communities are best served in this way.

The high cost of some journals has attracted enormous attention over the past few years, whereas the high cost of software and the often exorbitant licence charges have not. Most scientific software is proprietary, and beyond the reach of many poorer parts of the scientific community worldwide. All the more reason to be grateful, therefore, for the continuation of the open spirit in the tradition of Internet pioneers. Witness the group of Californian scientists developing sophisticated 'freeware' for DNA chip technology. The software, which users say compares favourably with costly commercial software, can be downloaded from the Web. Another example: scientists at the Max Planck Institute in Potsdam have made freely available a vast suite of plug-and-play tools, 'Cactus', that allows scientists from any discipline to use supercomputers without needing to know advanced computing techniques. A Japanese scientist is giving away E-Cell, a package that simulates basic cell processes. And so on.

The open-source movement has found its apogee in the Linux operating system developed by Linus Benedict Torvalds (see http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/~torvalds) as a 'hobby' -- which IBM last week decided to put at the core of its hardware plans. Because the code is not proprietary, it is being built on and debugged by an army of amateur developers worldwide, many of them academic scientists.

In short, amateur software developers are playing a key role in keeping systems open. But such activities need to be encouraged and professionalized by academic institutions; plans in France to create a research centre to provide bioinformatic tools for industrial and academic researchers build on the tradition of the Centre d'Etude du Polymorphisme Humain, the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information and the European Bioinformatics Institute. At a time when Microsoft looks as if it may be broken up (shades of AT&T) into 'Baby Bills', it would be ironic if science, and biology in particular, became a victim of new monopolies.

Nature © Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2000 Registered No. 785998 England.

Comments

Public funding

[vlax]

The reason research institutions have traditionally felt free to give their tools, results and expertise away is because they were mostly publicly funded. No one (okay, almost no one) ever got rich doing science - it was a bit like the old Marxist cliché from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Once money is out of the picture, prestige becomes the measure of success, in part for the reasons so frequently outlined by Eric Raymond, but also because the only people in science who do get rich are high-prestige scientists who get book contracts, do the lecture circuit, and for the really lucky, get bit parts in TV shows like the Simpsons and Star Trek.

From that perspective, giving it all away makes a great deal of sense.

Now, governments are pushing universities and other research institutions to seek private funding and cut deals with profit-seeking companies for whom prestige is inevitably secondary to the bottom line. With the advent of the "dot-com" boom, researchers in biotech and anything related to computing or cognitive science have the potential to make a fortune quickly by keeping their knowledge secret; and as long as they cut their bosses in for even a small piece of the action, most universities and research institutes are glad to let them.

The traditional culture of science and research is breaking down, and without a return to substantially publicly funded research, open source ideas will stop coming out of those places. This has an impact far beyond mere software. Science can't function in secret and in the long run there is a real risk that the technological revolution of the past 300 years will slow down or come to an end.

I know that open source as a movement relies on all sorts of volunteers. It's likely that Linux and the GNU packages we've come to know and love can survive without a flow of new ideas from researchers, but there will be a lot of suffering without them.