Google To Offer Free Database Storage for Scientists

An anonymous reader writes "Google has revealed a new project aimed at the scientific community. Called Palimpsest, the site research.google.com will play host to 'terabytes of open-source scientific datasets'. It was originally previewed for scientists last August . 'Building on the company's acquisition of the data visualization technology, Trendalyzer, from the oft-lauded, TED presenting Gapminder team, Google will also be offering algorithms for the examination and probing of the information. The new site will have YouTube-style annotating and commenting features.'"

Comments

Fantastic for Students and New Researchers

[cheesethegreat]

If this actually happens, and researchers are willing to make their data-sets open source, it would be a huge boon for budding researchers. It would allow students to do more than just work with a sample dataset out of a textbook. Graduate students learning how to do advanced modeling would be able to work with real datasets, vastly improving their skillset and employability. Just consider these two lines on a CV, and ask yourself which one jumps out at you.

"Designed a model for the dataset on the CD-ROM included with the Modeling Organic Systems textbook"

"Designed a model for the WISK-III heart output dataset published in 2006."

New entrants to a field would have instant access to enormous amounts of data very quickly and easily. Although the big kudos comes when you can do totally original work (new data, new analyss), a researcher who could come up with a new critique of older papers and studies would definitely get themselves noticed.

Overall, this is a really positive step for everyone on the lower rungs of the scientific ladder, and especially positive for those with limited resources.

Re:Fantastic for Students and New Researchers

[Gromius]

Yes I can see how it can appear elitist. And yes it is elitist in a sense. Because its really hard. A PhD student typically has to do about 3 years hard work to get out an analysis sufficient quality and thats with help from experts. Before that they have 4 years of advanced physics. I'm not saying the common man cant do it, just it'll take them years of hard work to understand it to analysis physics results which have already had 800 physicists pour over it to extract most things of value. However as I said, its really easy to think you've understood the data in a week or so and produce bogus results which I suspect most people would do.

As for the few geniuses who can handle the data better than any of us, yes its a noble idea and it sounds nice in practice. However these geniuses are still going to have to slog through the data and its still going to be hard, even for them to do it by them selfs. Its not something some wiz kid will pick up and by the afternoon have a nobel prize. However if they are really interested, they can stop by their local particle physics lab and talk to the people there. Its not as if we dont ever give out our data, lots of students (undergraduates and 6th formers (high schoolers for yanks) over the years have been given a copy and helped to understand it. If you want it badly enough you'll probably get some sort of access to old data. Sure some may fall through the cracks but thats unavoidable.

Also incidentally the most bogus results I'm afraid of are not from the general public but from our theoretical colleagues who are actually the people we are most concerned about hiding the data from :) A lot (but not all) think that data analysis is easy and have a vested interest in proving a certain model so subconsciously they might misinterpret the data or not rigorously check it when it looks like its proving what they want it to prove. Then all of a sudden you have headlines like Prof. X from Ivy League University Y has found a new physics Z in Tevatron/LHC data which if true would be the most significant discovery in physics in the last 30 years and so is splashed all over the media. The public and media just knows this guy is an ivy league professor but doesnt know that he is little more qualified to analysis the results than they are so they believe him. Arguments would then ensure of the significance of the finding and then eventually a retraction is printed. But this would be in the public and in the media and I think this is damaging to science as the general public starts thinking "these stupid scientists, always changing their mind, should we believe anything they say". Plus you would get an increase in the usual crazy science results but this time with data whose analysis most people cant tell is rubbish. Slashdot would be happy as they tend to like crappy science :) but its not something scientists would be happy with.

Re:Horrible Idea - What are the TOS?

[hostguy2004]

Google are offering this service to store PUBLIC DOMAIN data. If people don't want to release the data as public domain, then this aint the service for them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Domain

Re:mining for ads

[mikael]

These are data sets that have already been placed in the public domain by the scientists. These could be astronomy images, multi-spectral image photography, remote satellite imagery, seismology recordings, MRI/NMR/CAT scans and many other types of volume, image and signal data.