Nielsen

609 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

Nielsen

  1. 1. Reinventing Discovery<br />Michael Nielsen<br />Open Science Summit, July 2010<br />http://michaelnielsen.org/blog @michael_nielsen<br />
  2. 2. open data<br />open process<br />open <br />science<br />open community<br />
  3. 3. 27 January 2009<br />
  4. 4. Tim Gowers<br />
  5. 5. mathematician at Cambridge<br />
  6. 6. Fields medallist<br />
  7. 7.
  8. 8. attack a hard<br />mathematical problem<br />
  9. 9. completely in the open<br />
  10. 10. comment section <br />of his blog as the <br />medium of collaboration<br />
  11. 11. anyone could comment<br />
  12. 12.
  13. 13. Polymath Project<br />
  14. 14. density Hales-Jewett theorem<br />
  15. 15. “love to solve”<br />
  16. 16. XXX – rules of <br />engagement (circle)<br />rules of collaboration<br />
  17. 17. two broad themes<br />
  18. 18. be polite<br />
  19. 19. just a single idea in each comment<br />
  20. 20. even if half-baked<br />
  21. 21. discouraged from doing<br />extensive work in private<br />
  22. 22. Opened conversation up on Feb 1...<br />
  23. 23. 37 days<br />
  24. 24. 27 contributors<br />
  25. 25. 800 comments<br />
  26. 26. 170,000 words<br />
  27. 27. “to normal research as<br />driving is to pushing a car”<br />
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
  32. 32. We had all the expertise to <br />solve Gowers’s problem<br />
  33. 33. latent<br />
  34. 34. co-ordinated attention in a new way, <br />activating latent expertise<br />
  35. 35. restructured expert attention<br />
  36. 36. expert attention is often the most<br />important scarce resource in<br />solving creative problems<br />
  37. 37. By restructuring it we can amplify <br />our collective intelligence...<br />... extend<br />our problem-solving ability.<br />
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
  40. 40. explosion in the rate of<br />scientific progress<br />
  41. 41. Failing<br />
  42. 42. Failed<br />
  43. 43. Failed<br />
  44. 44. Failed<br />Failed<br />
  45. 45. Failed<br />
  46. 46. science comment sites?<br />
  47. 47. Failed<br />
  48. 48. scientific social networks?<br />“Facebook for scientists”<br />
  49. 49. Failed<br />
  50. 50. little incentive for scientists to contribute<br />
  51. 51. why share knowledge on a science wiki when:<br />They’re not very good<br />It might help your competitors<br />You won’t get any academic credit for it<br />
  52. 52. When we share results in journal<br />papers, we give something up...<br />... but we get a <br />reputational reward in return.<br />
  53. 53. When we contribute to a science wiki <br />or comment site or otherwise share <br />ideas, data, & code, we give <br />something up...<br />... and we don’t get enough <br />reputational reward for it to be practical<br />
  54. 54. New media have great potential...<br />...but unless there’s reward<br />for contribution, the opportunity<br /> cost leads people to do other things<br />
  55. 55. What’s successful....<br />...projects such as the <br />Polymath Project which have <br />conventional scientific ends (papers)<br />
  56. 56. missingsome big opportunities<br />
  57. 57. How to move to a more open system?<br />
  58. 58. Individually, it’s daunting to act<br />
  59. 59. ... benefits of open science<br />come from co-operation with others<br />
  60. 60. we can’t individually cause <br />mass co-operation<br />
  61. 61. It’s like trying to change the side<br />of the road everyone drives on<br />by changing sides yourself<br />
  62. 62. Sweden, 3 Sep 1967<br />
  63. 63. A very similar situation arose<br />at the dawn of science...<br />
  64. 64. “Exploitation of the mass medium [books]<br />was more common among pseudoscientists<br />and quacks than among Latin-writing <br />professional scientists, who often witheld<br />their work from the press.”<br />- Elizabeth Eisenstein<br />
  65. 65. Hooke’s Law<br />restoring force on a spring is proportional<br />to extension<br />published in 1676 as an anagram: ceiiinossssttuu<br />revealed in 1678 as the Latin uttensio, sic vis<br />“as the extension, so the force”<br />
  66. 66. if someone else made the same discovery, <br />Hooke could reveal the anagram, and claim priority, without having shared his initial discovery<br />
  67. 67. Galileo, Huygens and <br />Newton also employed anagrams<br />
  68. 68. atcgat<br />aacgtt<br />
  69. 69. discoveries were routinely kept secret<br />A secretive culture of discovery was a natural <br />consequence of a society in which there was <br />often little personal gain in sharing discoveries. <br />
  70. 70. The scientific advances in the time of <br />Hooke and Newton motivated patrons <br />such as the government to subsidize<br />science as a profession.<br />
  71. 71. The public benefit was strongest if <br />scientific discoveries were freely shared<br />
  72. 72. It took several decades to achieve the<br />required social change...<br />... a scientific <br />culture which rewards the sharing<br />of discoveries – in scientific journals! – <br />with jobs and prestige for the discoverer. <br />
  73. 73. a discovery not published in a <br />scientific journal was not truly complete<br />
  74. 74. Michael<br />Faraday<br />William<br />Crookes<br />“Work. Finish. Publish.”<br />
  75. 75. the first open science revolution<br />
  76. 76. achieved by subsidizing <br />scientists who published their<br />discoveries in journals. <br />
  77. 77. That same subsidy now inhibits<br />the adoption of more effective <br />technologies...<br />...because it continues to <br />incentivize scientists to <br />share discoveries in older media<br />
  78. 78. One template for change<br />Create new ways of earning a reputation<br />
  79. 79. preprints have begun to attain<br />status as an end in themselves in physics<br />
  80. 80.
  81. 81. Preprints could be seen merely as<br />a step toward “real” publication<br />
  82. 82. that’s (slowly) changing<br />
  83. 83. SPIRES keeps track of citations both between<br />arXiv preprints and regular journal articles<br />
  84. 84. SPIRES makes it possible to <br />demonstrate the impact of your work, <br />even if it’s not “published”<br />
  85. 85. Many physicists now put even<br />unpublished preprints on their CVs<br />
  86. 86. Make preprints citable, <br />and the impact measurable<br />new types <br />of reputation<br />small,<br />but real<br />More open science<br />data<br />code<br />questions<br />ideas<br />
  87. 87. can lead to a more <br />open scientific system<br />
  88. 88. second open science revolution<br />
  89. 89. Thankyou<br />http://michaelnielsen.org/blog<br />@michael_nielsen<br />
  90. 90.
  91. 91. open data<br />open process<br />open <br />science<br />open community<br />
  92. 92.
  93. 93. cosmological census<br />
  94. 94. recruiting online volunteers<br />
  95. 95. classify galaxy images<br />spiral or elliptical?<br />
  96. 96. humans still surpass the<br />best computers<br />
  97. 97. More than 250,000 volunteers...<br />... have done more than 150 million classifications of 930,000 galaxies<br />
  98. 98. 16 scientific papers<br />
  99. 99. Hanny van Arkel<br />“What’s the blue stuff below?”<br />
  100. 100. Hanny van Arkel<br />No-one knew<br />
  101. 101. Hanny van Arkel<br />followup observations<br />
  102. 102. Hanny van Arkel<br />quasar light mirror<br />
  103. 103.
  104. 104.
  105. 105. Aida Berges<br />From the Dominican<br />Republic, lives in<br />Puerto Rico<br />500 galaxies per week + forum posts<br />+ participates in several side projects<br />
  106. 106. Aida Berges<br />From the Dominican<br />Republic, lives in<br />Puerto Rico<br />“I went to Galaxy Zoo...<br />and my life changed forever…<br />It was like coming home for me.”<br />
  107. 107. broadening who can be a scientist<br />
  108. 108. Society as a whole<br />Bridging institutions<br />Scientific community<br />citizen science<br />open access<br />science blogs<br />news sites<br />????<br />Online tools are institution-generating <br />machines...<br />... change the <br />relationship between science and society<br />
  109. 109. open data<br />open process<br />open <br />science<br />open community<br />
  110. 110. scaled up<br />scientific conversation<br />
  111. 111. Polymath is a small part of <br />a much bigger transformation<br />
  112. 112. transformation in how <br />discoveries are made<br />
  113. 113. by new tools for sharing ideas <br />and data on the network <br />
  114. 114. Newton claimed to have invented <br />calculus in the 1660s and 1670s, <br />but didn’t publish until 1693<br />

×