Open research- removing secrecy from the search for nature’s secrets

In my earlier blog I described one of the important activities that determine the success of a scientist namely, publishing. The major purpose of publishing is to disperse knowledge. From a personal perspective publications are the lifeline for scientists. From the social perspective, publications disseminate knowledge to other practicing scientists. Again, from a personal perspective, frequently publishing results of one’s investigations shows the world that a scientist is still active (and also alive!). Publications in high impact journals show that he/she has gained respect. Becoming a regular contributor in top-journals shows the world that he/she is a star. In addition it tells the world that he/she is pioneer in his/her field and riding the crest of the wave of scientific progress. Appointments, promotions and awards are tied to citations and impact of scientific publications. Therefore, scientists ensure that information and details of methods used to procure it are kept a secret until it is safe for them to distribute it without jeopardizing their careers. This is the first level of secrecy in science that is a direct result of a scientist’s natural desire to retain one’s ability to win bread for the family.

 

            The second level of secrecy is introduced into the practice of science as soon as scientific information is published. This is a result of publications not being freely and readily accessible to everyone. This in turn is a result of the hold of publication industry over the information transfer it controls. No doubt, their-own survival and economic principles are the heart of this behavior. The importance of free dissemination of scientific knowledge however, has not left the attention of NIH policy makers. Therefore NIH has recently mandated that all NIH supported work has to be made available free of cost to everyone- open access- a great starting point. Also, there are several publishers who have willingly adopted openness as part of their operating philosophy. As a result 13000 journals are currently open access according to open science directory (www.opensciencedirectory.net), which is no mean thing for people hungry for access and scarce on resources. Compare this to the 40000 (forty thousand) journals indexed by pubmed (a biomedical search engine supported by NIH; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) that covers just medicine and health!

 

            Support from major UNO organizations such as WHO through special programs help people in developing countries access to several journals. For this reason, several open access titles have special eligibility requirements such as accessing from developing countries. But one should not forget that resources are not plenty and uniform across communities and regions in developed countries. Steps are required to address this deficiency.

 

            Do we really need these many journals? Consider the rate at which journals are sprouting out- a compounding 3.3% per year- much more needs to done from scientists themselves to stop the addition of further chaos to an already crowded environment. Part of the reason for increase in number of journals is the support extended by practicing scientists to this industry. Such support (knowingly or unknowingly) consume huge amounts of resources for procuring access rights to these journals by libraries and individuals and ends up eating up financial resources that can spend towards better causes such as education and training of aspiring young scientists and increase of scientific infrastructure. This is especially true for developing countries, which are short on resources to support scientific research. Maybe a step in the right direction from practicing scientists would be to curb their enthusiasm to support new journals and instead expand the scope and reach of the ones that already exist.           

 

            Not that I am obsessed with open source. But, to be frank, the concept has seeded parallel thinking in so many areas that it is hard to ignore the basic strength of its philosophy. One such area that has been adapted from open source philosophy is open science. This is a practice where scientists boldily put up their results (even proposals on which they are planning to start working or apply for funding) out in the open for feedback from the public and colleagues. They do this at great risk of getting scooped by competitors. This is a risky enterprise as it poses high probabilities of getting scooped, especially in highly competitive areas. Due to this reason, there are only a handful of scientists who opt for this. Most of the times, they also however seem ensure that they do this in a way that protects their competitive advantage. An extension of this practice from individual labs to teams of like-minded people all over the world is seen in enterprises such as OpenWetWare (http://www.openwetware.org). OpenWetWare encourages scientists to participate in hosting classes, publishing protocols and exchanging information. The exercise presently seems to have a large participation from scientists all over the world. Support for organizations like OpenWetWare comes from both government-supported funding agencies as well as individual universities. However, since participation in this endeavor is currently driven largely by personal motivation, more support has to come from funding agencies and universities to encourage and promote these activities.

 

            At the far end of the spectrum of the practitioners of open access, are open science institutes such as Molecular Science Institute (MSI), California. MSI was founded by reknowned geneticist and Nobel laureate, Dr. Sydney Brenner. In their own words “Additional and explicit social goals of the Institute are to encourage young researchers to independently explore new ideas and to nurture a free and innovative scientific environment beyond the constraints imposed by conventional academic, corporate, and government organizations, and to gain experience relevant for more ambitious interdisciplinary biology driven research projects later this century”. MSI is now designated as a Center of Excellence in Genomic Sciences (CEGS) by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The support extended by NIH itself to institutes such as MSI should be heartening for everyone as it evidently envisions a different path in the coming years (or decades) away from the one that is dictated by the publishing industry. Again, it is heartening to note that MSI is not alone in this world and open science institutes are currently propping up everywhere around the world through the support of private and public organizations.

 

            Concerted actions from all the participants would help with the progress towards the distribution of knowledge freely as well as READILY. An open environment will support both individuals and groups who struggle for key information for their scientific investigations. In a global economy and a well-connected world, it is important to realize that the costs of wastage (including carbon footprints) will be ultimately borne by everyone. No amount of insulation would prevent the costs-in terms of wasted labor and productivity-from spilling over man-made boundaries in the current scenario that has blossomed into a truly global one.