Scientific Appeal to Community 27
-
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"
Not for me.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not for me..or is it? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 an
Re:Not for me.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Although I respect your opinions, I don't share your opinion on state funded science. At least with it coming into fray, we can make an impact now on how IP is handled--a bottom up approach that may be
Re:Not for me.. (Score:1)
Save the sore throat and speak up before it's too late! Please support this project.
Re:Not for me.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not for me.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Not for me.. (Score:2)
Then you don't really support science, because the state, in it's various forms, plays a critical role in science. The reason is that, if left to "free enterprise", no one wants to be the one to spend the money on research that will benefit everyone (including their competitors). Free enterprise is good for engineering and invention, but really bad for science.
Or put another way, you don't get Fermilab and Hub
The 6th Day (Score:1)
The Boys from Sacramento? (Score:2)
Australian Open source biology (Score:2, Informative)
Published papers are akin to open source (Score:3, Interesting)
Open source works in the context of tech, however medical knowledge isn't so tightly defined by copyrights. The project is publicly funded, and like a university it will be availible to the public at a smaller price then a private research company's.
Re:Published papers are akin to open source (Score:3, Interesting)
This is true - but it's even more complicated.
Among the many reasons why the US system of publically funded science continues to be such an incredible success is that within the confines of government funding, it's like an artificial free market. (All you Randians out there, shut the fuck up for a moment and listen.) Scientists compete fo
Well, no (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, no. It's not at all clear to me what you have in mind, and your resume doesn't suggest that you know anything about biology or biomedical research.
Guessing about what you might possibly mean:
I wish you luck, and hopefully I'm underestimating your planning. (And if you get something promising going, I'll be glad to help.) But right now, with all due respect, this sounds like the equivalent of a new Sourceforge project from someone who expects volunteers to do all the work.
Re:FUD DETECTED! ACTIVATING EDUCATION! (Score:1)
Dear Mr. Smarmypants,
Your objections, while correct, are irrelevant. My point is not that public domain does not meet Stallman's definition of "free"; it is that constructs like the GPL do not meet the scientific community's definition of "free", particularly when applied to ideas or facts, rather than to lines of code.
Thank you for your concern.
Re:Well, no (Score:1)
The point of this project is to get people together to pool their knowledge and experience to give the ICOC some choices to consider.
And no, I'm not an expert about anything "open source," but what I've seen in its results and what I've read about some of its intentions makes me think there are people who believe some of its principles would bring benefits to other fields.
This project isn't to do biomedical research; it's about getting peopl
Playing devils advocate (Score:1)
Just a glance at reasoning for another model. Private investment in this area will lead to patents. If a state would fund it open source, then there would be no benefit for that state. (in terms of reaping back revenue to the fu
Re:Playing devils advocate (Score:1)
[OT too: you should read "Stark" [amazon.com] and "This Other Eden" [amazon.com] by Ben Elton. Then you'd REALLY worry...]
Re:Playing devils advocate (Score:1)
This other eden was superb, I haven't read stark. Marketting the end of the world is not as worrying as having your steak and kidneys sewn back on, and flirting with the nurse who is doing it (WTF was that about?) the ending was crazy good.
I might have a look at Stark. Wow, it was ages since I read TOE, I might re-read it! (do I dig in the attic, and inhale lots of dust, shortening my life for my paperback, or
Re:Ripping off the taxpayers (Score:1)
why here? (Score:2)
For all the talk of corporations getting money for this thing, most of the people in charge are going to be academics who have a big interest in seeing all the research in public domain (published in a journal).
Scientist? Now? No thanks! (Score:1)
1. Dr. Steven Mostow, 63, was one of the country's leading infectious disease experts and was associate dean at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. He died in a plane crash near Centennial Airport.
2. A man of boundless physical as well as intellectual energy, Wynn-Williams generated a constant flow of ideas, which entranced both his contemporaries and the young. He was killed in a road accident while out jogging near his Cambridge home.
3. Dr. Tanya Holzmayer, a
Very confusing. (Score:2)
Frankly, I don't understand in the least what you are trying to communicate. "Open Source" is a wide variety of different licensing models, philosophies, etc... You sound (from the tone of your website) like a /.zealot who firmly believes that open source is the cure for everything... Even if you aren't to clear on exactly what 'open source' i
C'mon people, this is important... (Score:2)
Wrong audience. (Score:2)
The best you're going to get is 'Mike Hunt' signatures and moral elitists who think that they emit some kind of 'morality field' and as such their posts have some kind of an eff
Re:Wrong audience. (Score:1)