Open Science Summit 2010 This Weekend
    By Matthew T. Dearing | July 31st 2010 06:12 PM | 2 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    This weekend marks the launch of the inaugural Open Science Summit conference in Berkeley, CA. The new program intends to be the centralized resource for the continued development in the scientific community of a new “open source” approach to scientific progress. This path toward enlightenment certainly includes a powerful role of the citizen scientist and amateur research making real contributions along with the traditional institutional developments.

    The entire conference is being steamed live online at [WATCH NOW]

    Speakers and discussion panels have been brought together this weekend, and include professional scientists, hackers, students, and activists to discuss the future of scientific discovery. Primary topics to be covered include synthetic biology, personal genomics, gene patents, open access to data, do-it-yourself biology, bio-security, and the future of open source scientific publishing.

    Drew Halley, a graduate student at UC Berkeley and a writer for Singularity Hub, is attending the conference, and will be posting exclusive reviews of each day, so we recommend reading his overviews to learn about what directly comes from this exciting new conference. [ 
    READ Mr. Halley's review of Thursday's meetings. ]

    If you watch any of the proceedings online, let Science 2.0 know what you learned. And, we would like to know what you think is important to consider for the future role of the citizen scientist in the progress of scientific understanding.

    “Scenes from the Open Science Summit” :: :: July 30, 2010 :: [ READ ]

    “The Open Science Movement” :: Andrew Zimmerman Jones, Physics Guide :: June 14, 2010 :: [ 
    READ ]

    Open Science Summit [ 
    VISIT ]


    I think people may expect too much from a couple of guys at Berkeley who are trying to do something rather than waiting for other people to do it.  From a Singularity Hub comment:
    Comment: I have high expectations for Open Science, but I had low expectations for this summit. Unfortunately, my expectations greatly exceeded reality. Yes, I wrote that correctly; If this meeting represents the the state of the field of open science, I’m afraid that I have no better word for it than: “Ugh!” What a bunch of ignorant fanboys (and girls); there were so many stupid claims about what makes science work or not work, and so many dumb ideas about what to do about it, that I found myself yelling at at least once during almost every talk (sometimes out loud, which startled the folks in my office). I was also watching the chat and discussion, which was even lamer than the talks. The CoLab thing that you called the “high point” was pretty much a plain vanilla forum. (With voting and all! Please spare us!) Later that afternoon Michael Nielsen gave a talk which started out by listing the pile of similar things that had failed. Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail. And Fail.
    TED probably wasn't anything great in 1984 but they stuck with it and now it is a polished conference so no one should expect to much from an Open Science Summit 1.0.

    The downside to having something become jargonized, like web 2.0 or Open Science (and that we have tried to resist happening with Science 2.0), is that people can say anything and over time it demeans the actual value of people doing real things - I hope one of these guys can make it stick and codify a real definition of what open science will be.
    I am also interested to see what sort of definition comes out of the conference--if any. Perhaps this would be a good discussion to begin here as well: What should "Open Science" represent moving forward so that it not only benefits both the professional and amateur scientist, but also helps science itself flourish more effectively than it does today?
    ______________________________________ Matthew T. Dearing Dynamic Patterns Research