Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientific Appeal to Community

Posted by Hemos on from the trying-to-get-thing-started dept.

dshatto writes "Help! This posting is to everyone who supports open source science: The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) will start taking shape in the next few months. This is the organization that will be spending $3 billion on stem cell and related research over the next 10 years. California has a chance to set a new model for scientific research. Models to consider for its intellectual property (IP) include open source models. I'm announcing a project that hopefully will:" Read more below... "
  1. 1) Demonstrate the power, speed, and effectiveness that open source principles and distributed collaboration offer.

    2) Produce a temporary community of advocates for open source science that links supporters together in a self-organized network aspiring to the common good.

    3) Develop information resources that the Committee setting up the CIRM can use in its consideration of open source models for intellectual property.

Please go here for details:
http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~dshatto/PROSODICOL.html

Slashdot gets the scoop on this - I won't post it anywhere else until I gauge your response. Why? Because, well, I think it's cool, and I think it's the right community to get this project going.

I believe that together we can make a lasting impact on science.
David"

3 of 27 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Not for me..or is it? by clonan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are correct when you say that "embryonic" stem cells are not the wave of the future for regenerative medicine...but they ARE a critical first step.

    The goal is to take adult stem cells and give them the abilities of embryonic stem cells and THEN use them for medicinal purposes.

    Just taking adult stem cells will not give you much...but by understanding embryonic stem cells we can in effect Have our cake and eat it too.

    Get all the real benifits of embryonic stem cells without the problems of rejection and ethical problems.

  2. Re:Not for me.. by sfjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't support you because I don't believe that the state should be funding scientific research,...

    Interesting. From Da Vinci to Fermi and beyond, the state has supported and funded scientific research. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a scientific advance that wasn't either funded by or directly based on research funded by the state. Caves may be fine for some but I prefer many of the comforts of modern society.

    --
    It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
  3. Re:Not for me.. by the+gnat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In fact, I don't think there has ever been a scientific advance that wasn't either funded by or directly based on research funded by the state.

    This is incorrect - there have been many of these. However, they usually fall into the category of "corporate engineering wizard", "lone genius", or "rich dude who can buy tons of laboratory equipment". The first is still quite common; the invention of PCR is a good example. The latter is occasionally found still (Craig Venter - although he got his start at the NIH, and also had a corporate sugar daddy that thought a genome sequence could make money) but more of those guys will just donate the money to scientists (thank you, Mr. Gates!). The second is the one that the libertarians praise the most, and I think it's the least common - because the lone genius can accomplish squat without a few hundred thousand dollars of equipment. (At least; I regularly use a $5 million facility at a $300 million accelerator. Thank you, American taxpayers!) Some rebel academic working out of his garage is never going to cure cancer unless he has access to a whole lot of money.

    Anyway, there was a time when quite a few advances were made privately, but I think the exponential progress in the hard sciences over the past century is due in part to increased funding. If we took all that away, I have no idea how progress would continue - most of basic research isn't driven by the commercial market because it's hard to predict whether something is going to be commercializable.

    The libertarian response to this is usually either "Not my problem!" (say that again when you're dying from cancer) or "Private donations will find a way!" (put down the bong, please). I agree with the libertarians on all sorts of issues (yay capitalism!) but I just don't see any replacement for our combination of public and commercial science. It seems to work pretty well. (Okay, it pays me, too.)