Open-Source Biology 122
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?"
Open Source Biology isn't limited to biogenetics (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course the biologists will win... (Score:2, Interesting)
I work in the power industry. While we do not necessarily share our source code outright (well, no one has asked), we share data like crazy. We don't hoard it because it wouldn't make sense. Our matrices and equations and system solving methods HAVE to be shared with our clients so they can ensure that we're actually giving them something that does what they think it does. Does this mean that other people are going around doing what we do? Not really, because we do it better.
If you are really good at something, other people aren't going to bother trying to do what you do because it's not worth the trouble. Just like the way I paid for someone to move my piano today. I could have gotten a bunch of friends together to do it and rented a dolly and truck, but that took way too much effort.
Convenience, much like advancements in science are going to benefit everyone. Someday, everyone who doesn't add value to society in some way is going to operate on the fringe (well, they already do to some extent), and all information will be shared for the greater good of all. If we collaborate with other industry leaders to come up with new features for our software or to help our clients do things better, it will always benefit us in the long run. The same will be true for the biologists and eventually corporations will get a clue as well.
Free Flow of information? (Score:2, Interesting)
One reason why this won't work, is that researchers depend on their discoveries in order to write papers and grants, which gives them more money to make more discoveries. If a small lab of a few people were to share all their information, then right before completion a huge corporation comes in and takes all credit, then that little lab is screwed.
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.
Finally, there is alot of information being shared within the biomedical industry. Many experiments are based on those found in published papers, there are guest speakers bi-weekly telling people about their successful research and we can take that information and test it, or we can tell them we have found that method doesn't work.
I believe that adding an extra layer of communication would further cloud things.
Out-compete - not really relevant (Score:3, Interesting)
Competition is sometimes relevant, but not in general. The scientist seeks to further the knowledge base, to reinforce his hypotheses, and their sub-hypotheses, etc. The corporation wants to make money.
Now, the scientist, in his quest to further knowledge, has no responsibility to avoid the intellectual property of others. If something is copyrighted, he cites it. If something is patented, he uses it anyway for research, with no necessity to pay to use the patent (unless, of course, there is no other way to get the invention).
The corporation, in its quest to make more money, need not even establish that something will work before it can establish IP. Knowledge is not directly relevant - they only need to set up tolls on the highway to commerce in the form of patents and copyright.
Sometimes, conflict exists. Celera is patenting genes, but only if they find them before NIH (which makes their database public). But in general the goals are different, patents can come from the work of scientists without interfering in the future work of the scientist (it is important to avoid conflicts of interest, usually by the scientist having no control or material interest in patent licensing - this is often not the case), and corporations establish their tolls without even paying attention to knowledge.
Flamebait, granted. (Score:2, Interesting)
Research is hard
Experiments aren't cheap
Many excellent biologists will hoard their work out of enlightened self interest. There will of course be individuals who see farther than that.
Some of those embracing the open source idea in this area (and anywhere an approach like that is used) will be riding coat tails and merely opportunistic. There will of course be a greater number of these men and women who are genuine in their desire to collaborate regardless of their abilities.
The real opportunity for something exceptional to come of this is when someone who IS better than his peers at what he does shares what he has with those other biologists.
Then you have a chance for one or more of those people to see that information from a different perspective and that's when the benefits are going to be obvious. It's a more optimistic take but I think in this case it's also more realistic as well.
Keywords (Score:2, Interesting)
"And that's what I think about Australian jumping elephants... oh and:
Linux, Open Source, and Microsoft Sucks"
"Open Source" science was practiced long before "Open Source" programming. In fact, it was the rule, rather than the exception until just recently. Bonding science to the corporate marketplace, while extremely profitable, also leads to a great deal of "Re-inventing the wheel". Hopefully this is the beginning of a trend back toward a detached scientific community.
Pretty ignorant article (Score:4, Interesting)
1) The idea of sharing information within and beyond the scientific community is hardly a new one. On the contrary, if anything secrecy has increased in recent decades, partly because of industrial applications but mostly becuase science is much bigger and more cutthroat than when it was a wealthy gentleman's pursuit.
The sort of collaboration described here is new and is driven by the Internet and by the large data sets in current biology. But to say that scientists got the idea to share information from Linus Torvalds is idiotic. That's not even where computer scientists got the idea.
2) Claiming that patents encourage "hoarding" of information is the sort of thing you expect to see in +1 Slashdot comments. The whole point of patents is to _encourage_ the sharing of information instead of relying on secrecy. Inventors trade disclosure for a temporary monopoly.
Again, there's a germ of truth here that companies after a patentable discovery need to be closed-mouthed about their progress, but that's probably given the author too much credit.
It doesn't matter who "wins" (Score:2, Interesting)
The parallels to open source programming run rather deep. There are many advantages to open source software (or open data science). However, there will always be room for people to work on propriatary projects. Micro$oft currently co-exists with open source developers. There is room for both. Sure, they don't always get along, but that's another story.
The way I see it, every scientist builds upon the research of others. That's just how science works. The open sharing of data only serves to speed up that process. Ultimately, every scientific discovery will be "borrowed" by some other scientist down the line. So what if a company takes some of that data and uses it's additional monetary resources to turn the data into a pill that can cure a disease. The point is, science and mankind, benefit in the long run.
There is another side to this as well. Corporate research tends to be very focused on solving a specific problem or answering a specific question. While this type of scince is very valuable and necessary, there is another type of science. The kind where researches study a phenomenon just find out what's going on and how things work. Often this type of "basic research" uncovers answers to problems that previously seemed unrelated. It appears that open data sharing would help to promote this kind of "basic research".