blog

One of the reasons that I enjoy science is the open exchange of ideas. It’s hardly the only benefit, nor is it exclusive to science. But our modern foundation of science relies on publication and discussion of results–and in turn others build upon what has come before.

It was not always this way. Years ago, I read a book on the history of mathematics which included a discussion on the solving of cubic equations in the 16th century. At the time, professors could be challenged for their position by anyone–so a new discovery was a prize to be kept secret at all costs. The challenge would occur by an exchange of questions and the position would go to the highest score. Since a challenger was likely to submit a mix of questions from all areas of mathematics, a professor who figured out how to solve a new type of problem could hand over an exam that only he could solve. Fame came from solving problems no one else could tackle, not from publishing the solution.

These days, an impressive résumé in science comes from a number of quality publications.

One of the cornerstones of publication is peer review and reproduction of results. In my case, since much of my research includes computer work, I think open science is important. Sharing code allows others to build off my work and to exactly reproduce my ideas.

That’s why I’m encouraged by the concept of the “Science Commons” by the Creative Commons. The effort seems short on details, but looks to include pushes for open access to scientific data and articles in some form. The idea is to enable a rich public commons so that all researchers can build on each other’s ideas.

It’s something of a controversial idea, to say the least. Currently, publication in any scientific journal requires the researcher to transfer copyright to the journal. Publication, particularly in paper form, is not cheap, nor is distribution, compiling databases of results, authors, etc. Any librarian at a university could tell you the price for subscribing to journals–even online ones. So it’s natural that journals are quite reluctant to relinquish those copyrights.

In the end, I hope a balance can be struck. Much like computer code, scientific data and articles can be released/license under multiple methods. For my code, I can release as open source since it’s only a part of my work and I am paid to do scientific research, not write software. But at the same time, as the original copyright holder, I could also sell limited rights for further development or incorporate into other (closed) works. Similarly, since researchers care mostly about reading articles, a journal might provide open online access to individuals but retain copyright and charge for incorporation into databases or other derived works (e.g., academic books).

(While a wise friend of mine told me that chemistry has a lot in common with legal studies, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. By the way, I doubt you’re reading this, but you know who you are. Nor am I an expert in copyright or intellectual property. Which just means that my opinions are my own and may not hold water in a court of law.)

In the end, I’m very interested in further opening of science. I think ultimately the result will be a better public commons for research and higher-quality research.