What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
68 Comments
- jarvelated, on 04/22/2008, -2/+18While in some fields this would be a great advantage to everyone involved (like genetics and development research in the Drosophila community) there are some fields that would, for better or worse, never use this method. Especially in cancer biology where being the first to publish can mean the difference between millions of dollars in funding or nothing, there is not as much incentive for scientists to share their work prior to publication, no matter what greater good might be served.
- sloppychris, on 04/22/2008, -1/+11"Critics say scientists who put preliminary findings online risk having others copy or exploit the work to gain credit or even patents."
If done right this shouldn't be an issue for a couple reasons:
1) Accurate logs should be kept to make sure the right people are credited based on user information and time stamping.
2) Even if work is claimed without attribution, this type of work encourages innovation in a way never seen before. The potential here is without question worth the risk, especially for those motivated by a quest for truth and not personal gain.
But then again, I'm not the one who spent a good portion of my life learning and doing the work, so I'm not sure it's my place to say. - sirbeta, on 04/22/2008, -7/+13Despite the fact I think the whole "2.0" crap is stupid, I can't really see this being a bad thing.
- sullyz0r, on 04/22/2008, -1/+7It's not about becoming a billionaire, it's about getting funding to increase your researching ability.
- atact88, on 04/22/2008, -2/+8As someone who does chemical research with the aim of developing new products, I am on the fence about this. Scientists require funding to stay in business, and being the go-to people for certain types of research is how that happens. It can take an enormous amount of time and effort to garner enough data to publish a paper, much less develop something patentable. A single paper, from a chemical perspective, can take years of meticulous work. It has to pay off. Scientists have to feed their families too. Patenting and protecting a technology doesn't cut off other researchers - instead, it makes collaboration more fruitful. It encourages scientists and laboratory teams to work together to make things happen, and also maintains reproducibility. This builds teams, adds more brains to the mix, mashes up philosophies, and ultimately results in better research. If Science 2.0 took off, scientists would just log onto a webpage, copy down some notes, and spend a great, long deal of time adapting the experiments and technology to green hands and reproducible results. It wouldn't improve the situation at all. It might even make science more cutthroat. You'd have more research labs going it alone, trying to be the the jack-of-all-trades, and I think that's not the way to do science.
That said, I COULD consider posting raw data around once all the patents were filed and papers were published. It wouldn't mean much, as any other lab hoping to copy it would have to optimize the experiment for themselves. - anarchyinthekr, on 04/22/2008, -2/+6hey that was my comment, i was going to publish it...dammit i shouldn't have put it online
- StaticThunder, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3And I will say the data is suspect until its been validated by peer review, and a blog is incidentally taking said suspect data direct to the public who will latch onto it as gospel and be disappointed when it turns out to be because the animal care person was scaring the bejeezus out of the rabbits and not popular drug Xyz causes panic attacks.
- catachip, on 04/22/2008, -2/+5This idea probably sounds best to those who are not actually involved in the scientific research community. It is a highly competitive environment that is supposed to (key word) result in only the "best" research being funded (we can debate that for a long time). However, in order to do this you must have novel and compelling research. These things would be undermined by prematurely showing your hand. Furthermore, scientific research has an extensive system of peer review prior to publication, which is designed to vet one's work, find flaws, and correct them (or reject the paper) prior to publication. A system of this would be akin to wikipedia - a mass of knowledge, but sometimes of dubious origin. We already have massive information sharing through online journal resources such as PubMed and Web of Science, at least for life sciences.
The sharing of information is good certainly. You do that with labs you collaborate with and through publication of results. But, a competitive research environment is required because it drives people to results and new findings. - darkciti2, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3It's better than mega-corporations buying the ideas and permanently burying them so they never make it to the public for the greater good.
Healthcare has become a subscription business model. That's great for businesses, but bad for people that need medical help.
A single pill to cure cancer is much more valuable to a person than a lifetime of "treatments". - Tinkered, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2As a statistician I am eager to pour through data. My biggest concern is incomplete data sets will be posted and authors will call it full disclosure.
I also fear that people with limited experience with stats will do a simple t-test when logistic regression or a linear mixed model is required and there will be a "debate" between differing analyses.
On the upside people might take some reasonability learning data analysis before they pundit about it. - ControlcChris, on 04/22/2008, -10/+12Sure, why not.
- grungegbunny, on 04/22/2008, -3/+5I think it would be great so scientists can review others work in real time and build upon or test it quickly.
- AaronStatic, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2Finally, a practical use for the semantic web!
- Mononuclear, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2the funding is from drug companies who want to become billionaires from patenting and marketing the cure. Of course as condition of this funding you sign an NDA and can't freely collaborate with other scientists.
- SLockhart, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3I can haz reesutz?
- SuperMoses, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3"Everywhere, in economic as well as in political life, the guiding principle is one of ruthless striving for success at the expense of one's fellow men. This competitive spirit prevails even in school and, destroying all feelings of human fraternity and cooperation, conceives of achievement not as derived from the love for productive and thoughtful work, but as springing from personal ambition and fear of rejection." - Einstien
I think we already breed too much of a competitive spirit as it is. - Mononuclear, on 04/22/2008, -5/+7sad but true. Imagine the advances in cancer biology if everyone just worked together for the greater good instead of who can find the answer on their own and become a billionaire...
- Singularitarian, on 04/22/2008, -3/+5By keeping research blogs, scientists can work together without even knowing they are working together. This spontaneous, instantaneous, informal collaboration is one of the most exciting things about the internet.
- copypastry, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1what does this ***** have to do with the canadian finals rodeo?
- Awspire, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2Damn, your getting dug down fast. The communists must be meeting tonight.
- llamaguy132, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1you would be surprised how easy it is for non morons to understand macro evolution, and seeing the results that prove it will only reinforce it. And i do hope we have more than 0.000001% intelligent population.
- asherchang, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1My first response to this question: Yes
My second response to this question, realizing that layman pseudo-skeptic Diggers will question the veracity of any study that they don'tt agree with, I have to change that to a no. That will just encourage more cherry-picking of "evidence" in the results that these armchair scientists will use to refute reasonable claims by people more versed in the technical aspects of science. A precedent for this grim future: creationism. - Diderotten, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1An article purely about science and you guys had to ruin it.
- jasonmacsween, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2Not only is it awesome.. there should be a site set up ASAP to be able to facilitate it on a mass scale.
- Diderotten, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1STOP THE SPAM.
- darkciti2, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2That's what forums and moderation are for. Scientists have forums that are PhD specific. The information there is much more reliable than your average blog.
- inactive, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1link?
- Lunarbunny, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I think it's similar to my aversion to calling ***** HD, even if it doesn't have a shred of high-definition.
Example offender (which I'm pretty convinced is *****): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m8fbnShPcw&feature ... - Diderotten, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Me or Him?
- StaticThunder, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2Have we forgotten the cold fusion debacle, the human cloning debacle, Lysenkoism...THAT is why not. Anybody who goes directly to the press (and a blog for better or worse is now 'the press') without peer review should be viewed with suspicion that the general public is unlikely to have, and worse, the first time something untrue is published, taken seriously by the public, will damage the credibility of all scientists, not just the idiot who published his raw data with no confirmatory experiments.
- ajkrik, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Like we don't have enough half-baked sources of information in our discourse.
- inactive, on 04/22/2008, -2/+3Right wingers will just claim that the data is cooked if it doesn't confirm whatever rush limbaugh or dick cheney have to say about the topic.
- robbiemuffin, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1everyone I know says one of two things against it:
-- statistics lie: people will be easly mislead by intentionally vague postings
-- derails the process of peer review for science.
but I think, we get the first problem whether or not the information is well prepared first or not — simple example from a Lewis Black routine: "We know next to nothing about what is good for you. Simple example, is milk good for you or bad for you? (silent rumblings) See?! I rest my case".
And the second one confuses the peer review system with private data. Public data means the data is public. establsihed facts still have to be established though. - atact88, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1media never reports accurately. AMEN
Bisphenol A is a case-in-point. I read a couple papers published in the American Chemical Society which found that while Bisphenol A had all the bad effects the TV mentions, these were seen in mice that were injected with bisphenol A or in test tubes.
When taken orally, both mice and men metabolize it into a form that is excreted harmlessly from the body in 4 hours. Bacteria in the environment are then able to digest it further.... - omnirusa, on 04/22/2008, -3/+3Yes, solong as there is an explanation of it.
Otherwise the press gets it, data mines what they want, then twist it to say the exact opposite of what the study showed. - atact88, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1You have a very good point! You would have to take for granted that the research is accurate and meets the expectational norms of epxerts in that field in the first place.
- inactive, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1You mean eggs won't kill me and chicken doesn't cause cancer? Surely you jest!
- hornback, on 04/22/2008, -3/+3I know this is kind of going against the grain, but I don't think it's a good idea. There's a reason the research world emphasizes the peer review process. It keeps the bad research from getting published. With a site like this, you completely lose that initial oversight. While I could see the benefits, I really think this will dramatically increase the "noise" in terms of crap research.
- indigit4l, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2I came here to say the same thing. I call for an unnecessary use of version number penalty. Eat ***** and die
- Diderotten, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2Is he a scientist?
- unversed, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2***** that, just admit you stole my comment.
- darkciti2, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1What? You said one thing and supported another.
- DeadpanScience, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0Credit also matters for people that are trying to get the increasingly difficult to obtain tenure positions, and it's one of the only metrics there is to measure how good a scientist is. If you put up a new idea and a couple of supporting experiments, there's absolutely nothing to stop some bastard PI from reproducing(your un-peer-reviewed web published experiments) and publishing your work in a real journal. I see absolutely no incentive for a scientist to post his in-progress work for everyone to see.
- AaronStatic, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1sometimes you need a gimmick to drive a good idea into the collective consciousness
- inactive, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0as opposed to republican gay *****? damn republican gay ***** in the ass after a steamy ***** and i thought only left wing liberals from san francisco liked that *****.
- inactive, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1And by the way, and I say this as a scientist, and to add to my previous comment, most who worry about getting credit are mediocre hacks who should have no place in science, anyway. With some rare exceptions.
More openeness and cooperation means more progress and innovation. They are good for science and society. - inactive, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0"An article purely about science..."
Hardly. - inactive, on 04/22/2008, -1/+199.99999+ % of the population hasn't the education to review scientific results. These should be out for peer review. This is exactly why we have morons trying to disclaim macro evolution. This isn't a discussion for high school kids and soccer moms.
- Diderotten, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1I don't think this would nessecarily cut the number of patents out there. As Sloopychris said, patenet stealing wouldn't happen because "accurate logs should be kept to make sure the right people are credited based on user information and time stamping. " The website itself would allow for more feedback from fellows in the same field. If your worried about cashflow, maybe they can have a donate function for people who like certain bodies of research.
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialoggs, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is