Open-Source Biology

nicholast writes with this "article describing the growing use of open-source collaboration methods in biology. The subtitle and main question is: Can a band of biologists who share data freely out-innovate the corporate researchers who hoard it?"

Comments

Sources of funding

[jonman_d]

I'm all for the free flow of information, expecially in science. But if there isn't an opertunity to make bundles of money, where is the funding going to come from? Government grants only go so far, after all.

Personally, I think that corperate funded science is a must...though I'm glad to see that some scientists are freely sharing information. The best way to do science is to combine both (which will never happen) and show corperations that they can get rich even when they share their data.

Re:Sources of funding

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Most biology is colloborative to a pretty high degree. Places pay for pertinent research and they pay for a well selected team if money exists, then those on the team have their own alliances to rely on etc... so normally there are several names to a project. I used to work in a USDA lab doing little piggy behaviour research at a NW Indiana University we worked with Drs from Pennsylvania on that project. Opening it further would be of significant value to the world but taking competition ouot would be detrimental to their paychecks I think... Karl

Re:Sources of funding

[Directrix1]

Open-source biology will never appear to the outsider to be outpacing 'closed-source' ones, because the closed-source ones will quickly absorb any information presented to them and create a derivative product. After which they will market the hell out of it.

Corporate lackeys will win every time

[Txiasaeia]

Think about it. One group shares information, one group doesn't. So, the group that doesn't share takes information from the group that does, and *boom*, automatically one group knows more. It's a nice idea though.

Re:Corporate lackeys will win every time

[Ashtangi]

I had the same notion. But then reconsidered a bit after reading a post further down. The "closed" scientific group will never benefit from an open review of their modifications. This could send them down the wrong tracks for long periods. IN the OSS movement it is the equivalent of the group debug session. Simply stated there is value to the giver in sharing knowledge openly.

This has already been proven...

[IQ]

"question is: Can a band of biologists who share data freely out-innovate the corporate researchers who hoard it?"

Unless this isn't 'biology' the human genome project has already succeeded in beating out a private commercial project with the human genome map.

Re:Free Flow of information?

[manobes]

Another problem is that researchers can go months, even years on wrong information, and theories. If these were published, yes theres a possibility they could be discounted, but they could be perpetuated, with lots of wrong data all over the place.

How is this different from any other science. I mean, in physics, there's lots of papers out there that will eventually be shown to be wrong. That's how science is supposed to work.

It's a shame that biology has become so profitable. Hoarding data and discoveries is not how science advances. The history of chemsitry and physics are ample illustrations of that fact.

I await the day...

[Biggles_the_pilot]

The open source model is something I readily dream about in finance research. The greatest proportion of papers published in journals come from universities with big reputations, not because of there being smarter people at Havard, for example, although to a certain extent that's true, but because of the amount of money they are free to spend on data, and the amount they already have, whereas smaller, lesser known universities, with never-the-less, a capacity for valuable output must scrape the bottom of the barrel just to get enough data for a decent conference paper.

I think there is a sort of un-uttered agreement that the journal review process exists, and that data is kept tightly protected because the establishment ensures proper quality of published output. In days gone by, perhaps that was a feasable approach, but with the advent of open source, and the thousands of developers forums throughout the web, I believe that finally there is a tangible example that argues for a complete overhaul in approach.

Despite the massive size and wide distribution of the community, there is still some, nay much, order to open source. There is some sort of consensus on the best distro, or the best app. for this or that. Reliable, secure and stable abound in open source; the bolts of excellent software are clear despite the storm. Open source has tipped arguments for the Cathederal, or a stuffy establishment that upholds integrity, on its head. The Bazaar works. People can be rewarded for the value of their output, and not their ability to horde.

In terms of a long term world view, I believe open information is the future in all areas of human endevour. How does a company create value by selling the same data, the same idea, a billion times. Let them be fairly recompensed for their effort in gathering the data, or putting the idea into a servicable form, and leave it at that.

Open source has demonstrated that the Bazaar is able to sort the elite from the mundane, and what's more, the volume and value of the output would not have been possible within a single closed establishment.

Oh, I wish, I wish, I wish that data and information was open. I wish that governments would legislate against data and idea hording; I believe such intervention passes the test of expediency. All hording does is hold back the ability of so many people to produce so much valuable output. This is the future for all important areas of human endevour if we ever want to make more of our precious progress before the earth is consumed by the sun.

I have much more to rant about, but you've probably stopped reading by now anyhow.

Re:Pretty ignorant response

[Slashamatic]

Shall we say that certain parts of the industry, particularly those relation to pharmaceuticals have been a little too fond of hot money. Some academics like to have one foot at the University whilst the other is at a professional lab, tending to reduce the quality of 'open' work.

I agree with you that the point of patents is to promote disclosure in return for a limited monopoly. The problem is that because of the running time of the monopoly (about 10-15 yrs for a drug, because the first 5-10 years deals with the approval process), the patents will be left until the last moment.

The other issue is the non end-use related patents. Large companies can swap licenses on this but smaller companies and the third-world need to carefully avoid the intermediate steps that have been patented.

Again you are right that the Open Source movement is a bit of a Johnnie-Come-Lately as regards disclosure, but the use of copyleft is something that has come from the computer field and has given vast leverage to developers. You are right about the purpose of patents, but essentially they have become a way of sowing a legal minefield in a competitor's path.