The impact of information exchange on science
I present to you the translation of the second article from the series “We Love to Share,” which was written by Eric Shtoer, especially for good.is magazine.
The first article is devoted to the influence of information exchange on everyday life.
Peter Murray-Rast is a chemist and lecturer in molecular informatics at the University of Cambridge, as well as a senior fellow at the University. Churchill.
I often wonder how a huge amount of information that is laid out on the Internet could be used for the benefit of science. Using this information would give us unimaginable possibilities. However, you first need to access it. One of the main disappointments that a scientist can overtake is when a key piece of information is not available. I was convinced of this by the example of chemistry. There is a lot of information on the Internet, but only a small part of it is available for free or does not require permission to use. As a result, I, like many others, came up with the idea of the freedom of knowledge - or, if you like, with the claim that certain types of information should be freely available to all of humanity.
Much also depends on the field of science and on individual scientists, chemistry is pretty conservative in this regard, while astronomy or particle physics usually give free access to all their data. But still people begin to understand that if the research was paid for from a government or charitable organization, its results should be available. Various parties that sponsor grants require that researchers publish not only the description of the study, but all the data on which it was conducted, this practice is becoming popular in the United States, the United Kingdom, and in many other countries.
')
There are two or three real problems. One of them is that making data accessible has not become a habit among scientists. It is much easier to create one document (for example, a copy of your publication) than to provide data in the form in which people would like to use it. These are technical aspects. Another problem is unwillingness. Scientists still do not consider it their duty to share knowledge with the "people", they do not represent how good it would be. That is, they need to change the attitude to their work, as well as to think about how to convey information to the public. It is quite natural that many scientists compete with each other, because funding depends on the number of publications; the more you are published, the more you get. Therefore, people become very jealous of their results and prefer not to keep the information open, because otherwise the rivals will be able to use and may be able to see something significant that the published scientist missed in his time.
Forced to agree with the view that not all information may be available. In particular, this applies to case records or data that are relevant to social security. Privacy should not be in the public domain. But in many areas of science, especially in the physical sciences, as well as in materials science, in principle, there are no barriers to freedom of information. There is also such a thing as a trade secret, and many companies have so far profited from the fact that they collected information from the public and, having packed it in a “wrapper,” sold it back. In the XX century it was in the order of things. But in the 21st century, when a huge amount of information appears digitally, willy-nilly, you begin to think about economics, within the framework of which we could give the knowledge that we create to society, instead of hiding it.
Translator: ZolDoR
Proof: Weblamer
Especially for the Pirate Party of Russia .
The first article is devoted to the influence of information exchange on everyday life.
Peter Murray-Rast is a chemist and lecturer in molecular informatics at the University of Cambridge, as well as a senior fellow at the University. Churchill.
I often wonder how a huge amount of information that is laid out on the Internet could be used for the benefit of science. Using this information would give us unimaginable possibilities. However, you first need to access it. One of the main disappointments that a scientist can overtake is when a key piece of information is not available. I was convinced of this by the example of chemistry. There is a lot of information on the Internet, but only a small part of it is available for free or does not require permission to use. As a result, I, like many others, came up with the idea of the freedom of knowledge - or, if you like, with the claim that certain types of information should be freely available to all of humanity.
Much also depends on the field of science and on individual scientists, chemistry is pretty conservative in this regard, while astronomy or particle physics usually give free access to all their data. But still people begin to understand that if the research was paid for from a government or charitable organization, its results should be available. Various parties that sponsor grants require that researchers publish not only the description of the study, but all the data on which it was conducted, this practice is becoming popular in the United States, the United Kingdom, and in many other countries.
')
There are two or three real problems. One of them is that making data accessible has not become a habit among scientists. It is much easier to create one document (for example, a copy of your publication) than to provide data in the form in which people would like to use it. These are technical aspects. Another problem is unwillingness. Scientists still do not consider it their duty to share knowledge with the "people", they do not represent how good it would be. That is, they need to change the attitude to their work, as well as to think about how to convey information to the public. It is quite natural that many scientists compete with each other, because funding depends on the number of publications; the more you are published, the more you get. Therefore, people become very jealous of their results and prefer not to keep the information open, because otherwise the rivals will be able to use and may be able to see something significant that the published scientist missed in his time.
Forced to agree with the view that not all information may be available. In particular, this applies to case records or data that are relevant to social security. Privacy should not be in the public domain. But in many areas of science, especially in the physical sciences, as well as in materials science, in principle, there are no barriers to freedom of information. There is also such a thing as a trade secret, and many companies have so far profited from the fact that they collected information from the public and, having packed it in a “wrapper,” sold it back. In the XX century it was in the order of things. But in the 21st century, when a huge amount of information appears digitally, willy-nilly, you begin to think about economics, within the framework of which we could give the knowledge that we create to society, instead of hiding it.
Translator: ZolDoR
Proof: Weblamer
Especially for the Pirate Party of Russia .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/74603/
All Articles