Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Announcements Science

Scientific Appeal to Community 27

Posted by Hemos 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"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientific Appeal to Community More

Scientific Appeal to Community

Comments Filter:

  • Not for me.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ThisNukes4u ( 752508 ) <tcoppi AT gmail DOT com> on Monday January 17, 2005 @08:55AM (#11384669) Homepage
    I don't support you because I don't believe that the state should be funding scientific research, and beyond that, that embryonic stem cells are not the wave of the future for regenerative science but rather, adult stem cells and DNA manipulation. Don't take it personally, but thats just my belief.
    • 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 an

    • Re:Not for me.. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Linuxathome ( 242573 )
      What don't you support exactly? I respect that you don't support state funded research, nor embryonic stem cell science. However, the main issue of his "proposal" is to lay the groundwork for an "open source" science system whereby IP is open to build upon and to expand. Do you at least support that premise?

      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
      • Thanks. Your second paragraph shows you get what I'm proposing, and why I think this project necessary. California is open to new standards right now - once it starts making real decisions in only a few months, protest would be futile.

        Save the sore throat and speak up before it's too late! Please support this project.

    • Re:Not for me.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sfjoe ( 470510 ) on Monday January 17, 2005 @12:35PM (#11386744)
      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.

      • Re:Not for me.. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by the gnat ( 153162 )
        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
    • I don't support you because I don't believe that the state should be funding scientific research

      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
  • It's pretty clear why Arnold is funding this. He's hoping to have clones of himself resume his movie career sometime by the middle of his 3rd term as governor.

  • Australian Open source biology (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There's a similar approach being adopted in Australia, as reported in Wired [wired.com].

  • Published papers are akin to open source (Score:3, Interesting)

    by infonography ( 566403 ) on Monday January 17, 2005 @09:51AM (#11385119) Homepage
    It's not exact but patents are pretty specific about bits of technology. However to get anywhere in hard science you need to publish. The techniques will be availible to the community. It is the primary benchmark for the research community.

    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.
    • However to get anywhere in hard science you need to publish. The techniques will be availible to the community. It is the primary benchmark for the research community.

      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)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Monday January 17, 2005 @10:05AM (#11385238) Journal
    I apologize for vaguely using the term "open source" to get my point across. I trust you will have an intuitive understanding of what I'm trying to communicate.

    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:

    • Making data, conclusions and tools freely (by normal, non-Stallmanist usage of "free") available: this is easy enough to do, but you're talking about "public-domain" in that case.
    • Some sort of GPL-ish scheme: this would be an unmitigated freaking disaster. It would create precisely the sort of tangled web of encumbrance that you want to avoid.
    • Distributed collaboration: I'm always skeptical of these notions in biomedical research (and distributed and "open-source" aren't the same thing, anyway). If you have a workable scheme, I'd love to hear about it but as I said, it doesn't sound like you know the first thing about the subject.

    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.

    • "If you have a workable scheme, I'd love to hear about it..."

      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

  • If calif. fund this research, and a calif. company reaps rewards, and calif. based researchers get ace new jobs, and bring more brain power into calif. and more taxes get paid, then calif. can be the leading producer of stem cell based cosmetics, which, to be frank, will come about.

    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
    • "Seeing a news report on 'cold' pollution and 'warm' pollution (particle versus CO2) and tsunamis and freak weather all this winter (el nino, other new patterns) and amazon and virgin galactic investing into new privitised space makes me think some people at the top know something we don't!"

      [OT too: you should read "Stark" [amazon.com] and "This Other Eden" [amazon.com] by Ben Elton. Then you'd REALLY worry...]
      • [OT too: you should read "Stark" and "This Other Eden" by Ben Elton. Then you'd REALLY worry...]

        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
  • You work at UCLA... one of the centers for this kind of research. Get off your butt, go across campus and talk to one of the stem cell researchers if you have an idea for them. What do you want us to do?

    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).
  • Missing / Dead Scientists

    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

  • I apologize for vaguely using the term "open source" to get my point across. I trust you will have an intuitive understanding of what I'm trying to communicate.

    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

  • Where's the support and discussion? We're being granted the chance to act now for once. If we pass this up, we'll just ensure more frustrating stories on yro.slashdot.org.
  • I hope you pull off everything you envision, and even some things you (nor anyone) currently can. However, you've just asked the Internet equiv. of a schoolbus of bored 12 year olds to give thoughtful input to a project that most of them have no realistic knowledge of, aside from a left/right wing article they read on someones blog.

    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

Slashdot Top Deals

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?

Close