Inscribed outside of the National Academy of Sciences
offices in Washington is a quote by Einstein: "The right
to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal
any part of what one has recognized to be true."
While this quote may represent the ideals of science - sharing
information, openness, and the unrestricted flow of knowledge
- its principles are not often, in reality, practiced.
With scientific research being strongly dependent on external
funding, the drive for profit has created intense competition
and secrecy amongst scientific communities, and there are
many who question what this does for scientific advancement.
Innovation is suppressed, critics argue, in this climate
of competition and security.
As Nicholas Thompson, contributing editor of The Washington
Monthly, points out in his article "May The Source Be
With You," the whole "corporatized system" rests
on the "ability to hoard information."
"Our increasingly corporatized system has produced
some notable medical breakthroughs and innovations - drugs
to treat high cholesterol and depression, for example," Thompson
writes. "But hoarding information clashes directly with
another imperative of scientific progress: that information
is shared as quickly and widely as possible to maximize the
chance that other scientists can see it, improve on it, or
use it in ways the original discoverer didn't foresee."
Open-source collaboration and development is a radical approach
embraced by many scientists who want to break through the
secrecy hindering scientific progress. In an open-source
collaboration, scientists open up their research to the expertise
of a larger community. All information is made freely available
to the public, and anybody can take a problem and apply their
knowledge to the solution. The participants in open-source
projects are unpaid volunteers who donate their time and
knowledge purely for the satisfaction of contributing to
a larger, complex problem, such as finding the cure for a
disease.
The key aspect of open-source collaboration is innovation. According to Karim
R. Lakhani, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School, "broadcasting" problems
to "outsiders" often brings effective solutions. In fact, Lakhani
asserts, it is outsiders - those who are experts in fields other than the problem
at hand - who are often the most likely to find results the quickest.
According to Lakhani, nearly one-third of the unsolved problems
in the laboratories he's studied were successfully solved
when broadcasted to outside scientists through open-source
programming models.
"Innovations happen at the intersection of disciplines.
People have talked about that a lot and I think we're providing
some systematic evidence now with this study," Lakhani
told the Harvard Business Review in an interview.
He points out how many of the scientists participating in
his study were skeptical - at first - about open-source collaboration. "They
had never thought about the possibility of scientists in
other disciplines looking at their problem, reconceptualizing
it, and coming up with a solution that could be off-the-shelf." (Source:
HBR)
One remarkable example of open-source science is a project
called Synaptic Leap. In this collaboration, scientists from
Sydney to San Francisco are working together online to develop
cures for "neglected" tropical diseases. Launched
in November 2005, their goal is to create a number of different
drug leads that could eventually be developed for free.
Through online discussions, participating members of Synaptic
Leap create a list of experiments that are posted on their
website for anyone to take on. The raw data is posted online
and discussed. Project members then solicit further ideas
in the hopes that more researchers will lend their expertise
to the project.
Australian chemist Matthew Todd, a member of Synaptic Leap,
recently co-authored an essay titled "Open-Source Research
- The Power of Us." In it, he addresses how open-source
science is similar to the process of conducting research
in academia.
"Conferences, workshops, and 'invisible colleges' of
researchers facilitate the spread of nebulous concepts, unpublished
results, or tentative ideas," he writes. "Progress
is almost always made in incremental steps, with many abandoned
ideas along the way."
Proponents of open-source collaborations say that it is
a great way to accelerate scientific development. Online
discussions and open-source software allow for instant feedback
and exchange on ideas and data. It places scientists from
all parts of the world in touch with other, providing the
opportunity for them to learn about experimental successes
and failures, which can be just as important as attaining
results.
The main challenge involved with open-source science is
that it can prevent research becoming published in a peer-reviewed
journal. When scientists place their raw data online, they
do so at the risk of their own reputations. Because data
becomes public as soon as it is posted, they also give up
their ability to patent discoveries.
Yet proponents of open-source science argue that it could
help nonprofit pharmaceutical companies like the Institute
for OneWorldHealth. For Synaptic Leap, which deals with "neglected
diseases," scientists argue there was never any income
for them to gain in the first place.
Besides Synaptic Leap, other online open-source communities
include GenBank, a website where gene sequences are shared
publicly; the Table of Isotopes, where physicists share information;
and Chemists Without Borders, created to "help better
the world through chemistry."
For more information:
http://www.thesynapticleap.org/
http://www.chemistswithoutborders.org/
http://www.oneworldhealth.org/
Do you have a comment or feedback on
this article? Email
us and let us know what you think.
|
