Knowledge Sharing in the Sciences - 8JPL

1,011 views
925 views

Published on

Given on 1 July 2009 at the University of Barcelona for 8JPL.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,011
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Knowledge Sharing in the Sciences - 8JPL

  1. 1. knowledge sharing in the sciences kaitlin thaney program manager, science commons barcelona, spain - 1 july 2009 This presentation is licensed under the CreativeCommons-Attribution-3.0 license.
  2. 2. information sharing is at the root of scholarship and science the system of print publishing is a system of sharing knowledge then came the move to digital ...
  3. 3. the web revolutionized search, commerce, collaboration
  4. 4. sharing became cheaper, easier technically costs of copying, moving, storing ... down to nearly zero ability to link between nodes of information (dating back to 1980s)
  5. 5. yet ... most of the useful knowledge is inaccessible. most of the useful knowledge is in the wrong technology. we don’t have enough people working on the problem(s).
  6. 6. (0) the “research web” (1) step 1: opening access (2) step 2: access to research tools (3) step 3: access to data (4) step 4: open cyberinfrastructure (5) what’s next?
  7. 7. make sharing easy, legal and scalable integrated approach building part of the infrastructure for knowledge sharing
  8. 8. the “research web” making the web work better for science integrating disparate knowledge sources make better use of existing information in the digital form
  9. 9. knowledge? journal articles data ontologies annotations plasmids and cell lines
  10. 10. have capability to drastically increase sharing at lower cost ... ... though, still roadblocks ... silos of knowledge, walls of cost, secrecy, lagging incentive system for collaboration and sharing
  11. 11. step one ... it all starts with access to the scientific content and data ...
  12. 12. scientific revolutions occur when a sufficient body of data accumulates to overthrow the dominant theories we use to frame reality a so-called paradigm shift - from thomas kuhn
  13. 13. scholarship entrenched in idea of transmitting knowledge via paper mentality reflected even in the way we describe “papers” static, one-dimensional documents
  14. 14. in the digital world, “papers” can become living, breathing works no longer static PDF documents linking to data sets, other relevant papers, information, plasmids, genes
  15. 15. oldest scientific journal published in english- speaking world 1665
  16. 16. need to change the way we think of scholarly publishing, of knowledge sharing paradigm shift begin thinking of “papers” as containers of knowledge
  17. 17. “papers” IGFBP-5 plays a role in the regulation of cellular senescence via a p53-dependent pathway and in aging-associated vascular diseases
  18. 18. “networked knowledge” IGFBP-5 plays a role in the regulation of cellular senescence via a p53-dependent pathway and in aging-associated vascular diseases
  19. 19. content needs to be legally and technically accessible we’ll start with legal ...
  20. 20. thinking of “papers” more as containers of knowledge copyright locks that container
  21. 21. traditional transfer of copyright agreement
  22. 22. Open Access (OA)
  23. 23. “ By open access to the literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.” Image from the Public Library of Science, licensed to the public, under CC-BY-3.0
  24. 24. “The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.”
  25. 25. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
  26. 26. legal implementation
  27. 27. step two access to research tools from funded research
  28. 28. examples: lab mice, cell lines, DNA, stem cells ... the physical materials office supplies for science
  29. 29. ideally ... contact author, obtain material, recreate experiment build on the existing work, publish and repeat ...
  30. 30. the reality ... materials difficult to find, fulfill, lack resources reagents and assays often re-invented or reverse engineered locked in contracts, bureaucracy, deliberate withholding, “club mentality”
  31. 31. no office superstores for science no internet marketplaces for science
  32. 32. another way to think of it ...
  33. 33. solves the access problem via contract UBMTA (standardized material transfer agreements, or SLA MTAs) SCMTA standard icons, CC methodology, metadata
  34. 34. step three data and the public domain
  35. 35. legal issues: “it’s complicated”
  36. 36. copyright and databases what’s protected? is it legal? facts are free to what extent is there creative expression?
  37. 37. database protections based on jurisdiction sui generis, “sweat of the brow” Crown copyright the list goes on ....
  38. 38. social issues: protection instinct / culture of control PD relinquishes much of this control, even control in the service of freedom “my data”, interpretation issues fear, uncertainty, doubt (FUD)
  39. 39. issue of license proliferation whatever you do to the least of the databases, you do to the integrated system (the most restrictive wins)
  40. 40. need for a legally accurate and simple solution reducing or eliminating the need to make the distinction of what’s protected requires modular, standards based approach to licensing
  41. 41. our solution ... reconstruction of the public domain create legal zones of certainty for data attribution through accompanying norms
  42. 42. 3.1 The protocol must promote legal predictability and certainty. 3.2 The protocol must be easy to use and understand. 3.3 The protocol must impose the lowest possible transaction costs on users. For the full text: http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/
  43. 43. CC Zero waiver + SC norms waive rights public domain attribution / citation through community norms, not a contract
  44. 44. a protocol, not a license
  45. 45. calls for data providers to waive all rights necessary for data extraction and re-use requires provider place no additional obligations (like share-alike) to limit downstream use request behavior (like attribution) through norms and terms of use
  46. 46. public domain = license, cannot be made “more free” - only less free PD = the original commons at least make metadata open, if one can’t make data itself open
  47. 47. early adopters, committing to make their data open using CC0 (1) Tranche - free, open source (2) Personal Genome Project (3) Digg, Flickr, WhiteHouse.gov (4) EMBL SIDER, TDI Kernel
  48. 48. technical considerations: persistent URLs open, stable namespaces standards, standards, standards facilitate integration, interoperability and more ...
  49. 49. step four invest in open cyberinfrastructure
  50. 50. data without structure and annotation is a lost opportunity. data should flow in an open, public, and extensible infrastructure support recombination and reconfiguration into computer models, queryable by search engine treated as public good
  51. 51. change requires a new legal infrastructure to encourage collaboration traits of legal protocols: legally accurate simple for scientists low transaction costs facilitate interoperability business and user friendly
  52. 52. what can you do? lead by example ...
  53. 53. design for maximum reuse ensure the freedom to integrate leverage existing open infrastructure allows for snap together integration of the tools, data, research literature
  54. 54. what’s needed? common standards, right software accessible data and content open infrastructure build for network effects
  55. 55. thank you kaitlin@creativecommons.org sciencecommons.org neurocommons.org

×