Open Science and Open Education

A scientist must know and be able to do a lot of things that are impossible to read in books. How can, for example, learn how to conduct a pilot study? In the literature, you can read about the specifics of the experiment as a method of knowledge, about its main stages, etc., but it is almost impossible to read about the specifics of the application of the experiment to solve specific cognitive tasks. Such moments make up the so-called “personal knowledge” (M. Polani), which in most cases cannot be expressed at all in words and learned by scientists only in the course of joint work.
One of the striking trends in the development of modern methodology of science is the interest in as much in identifying the general as in the reconstruction of the unique. Widespread work in which detail - step by step - describes the process of a scientific discovery. Of course, such books are very useful for scientists: they allow you to restore the context in which the discovery was made and help to better understand the nature of scientific research.
Thanks to the Internet, scientists have new opportunities for the exchange of knowledge and experience. The most progressive representatives of the scientific community began to reflect on the possibility of effectively using the newest forms of Internet communication in research work. One of these scientists was the American chemist Jean-Claude Bradley, known as the author of the concept of "open science" (Open Notebook Science).



What is “open science”?
')
The idea of ​​“open science” is extremely simple and consists of maximum transparency: every step of a scientist is reflected in open and publicly available Internet sources (as a rule, in special scientific blogs). All published information is open for further use: on its basis, other authors can write their own articles, it can be checked and corrected, etc. Recently, many supporters of "open science" (including its founder Jean-Claude Bradley) prefer wiki format: it allows you to better reflect which research procedures were carried out at specific time intervals.
There are similarities with the ideology of open source software development (adherents of “open science” note that the philosophy of OpenSource Software had a direct impact on them).

Why is all this necessary?

The following arguments can be made in favor of “open science”:

• openness will allow scientists to quickly receive feedback from the audience, respond to comments and correct mistakes;
• transparency will also significantly improve the level of public expertise (environmental, economic, ethical) research projects;
• due to openness, the productivity of scientific work will increase: the number of duplicative studies will significantly decrease; In addition, obtaining information on the progress of colleagues' studies in real time will help scientists avoid many mistakes, publishing detailed information on the progress of scientific research will help to establish productive scientific contacts (including between representatives of different disciplines), as well as a fruitful exchange of experience;
  transparency will also contribute to better mutual understanding between scientists and representatives of other fields of activity (for example, business); transparency will also contribute to the development of new approaches to many problems of the philosophy and methodology of science;
  
  Arguments against "open science"
  
  With all its advantages, full openness in science can give rise to many complex problems, in particular:
  
  
  • the desire for open data in many cases is contrary to the existing legislation on copyright and patent law;
  • publication of all information about the research process is not a panacea against fraud;
  • The requirement of maximum transparency of the research process entails the requirement of maximum scientific integrity: it is not a secret for anyone that the same blogs are often used by scientists to propagate their successes, and writing about the failures “live” is much more difficult.
  
  
  Who is doing this?
  
  Most theorists and practitioners of "open science" are natural scientists. The blog list given in English Wikipedia consists solely of resources sponsored by chemists and biologists. Humanists practicing Open Notebook Science are unknown to us. However, there are certainly interesting initiatives in the field of cultural and social sciences. As a successful project, you can bring the dictionary of the Martinique Creole language of Raphael Konfian , which was created in open mode: the author laid out dictionary entries in open access, site visitors downloaded them and sent their own corrections and additions. Soon the dictionary was published in book form.
  The insignificant activity of the humanities in the open science movement is quite explicable. In the natural sciences, the personal factor is minimized: the scientist is not so much creating his own product, as fixing the laws of the surrounding world that exist independently of our desires, values, attitudes, etc. In the humanities, the process of knowledge in many cases is closer to artistic creativity than to the impartial discovery of the laws of nature. Naturally, the placement of personal creativity products in the public domain is perceived painfully by many. (By the way, it is quite understandable why linguists primarily lead linguists from humanitarians: they only fix the current state of the language, without bringing anything from themselves, and this is where their work is akin to what natural scientists do).
  However, the situation is changing: with the development of digital technology, the ideology of OpenSource has an impact on art. It can be assumed that the penetration of these influences into the humanities is only a matter of time.
  
  The ideology of "open science" and education
  
  What can “open science” give a modern education system? Some of her ideas and principles may well be implemented in the practice of preparing students and graduate students. Possible lines of work in this direction can be represented as follows:
  
  
  • It is no secret that most of the so-called student science is done only for show. What a sin to conceal - the same can be said about the postgraduate, "dissertation" science. There are very few cases of real implementation of students' scientific achievements in practice. Student and graduate research groups could well maintain their own blogs and wikis. What are the advantages of this practice? First of all, it is the establishment of contacts with other members of the scientific community. With the help of research Internet sites, graduate students and supervisors could well find each other. In addition, open research resources may be of interest to employers, as well as to investors and business angels. (Examples of financing and monetization of open projects are available). Openness could significantly improve the quality of preparation for student conferences and seminars. Imagine such a situation: all conference participants post abstracts in a special blog, comment on each other’s texts, participate in discussions ... This practice will allow speakers to correct their own speeches, their opponents to think through and clarify their own position and arguments in its defense.
    
    In some cases, maintaining an open science project could be an alternative to the traditional practice of writing term papers. It's no secret that the level of culture of writing among modern students has dropped significantly. Often term papers (and graduation papers) are compiled from Internet sources, and students do not even care about bringing pieces from different sources into a single style. Openness could contribute to the production of unique texts.