Banner
    A Template For The Next Phase Of Science 2.0? From Hypothesis To Data-Driven Research
    By Hank Campbell | May 31st 2011 04:10 PM | 3 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

    View Hank's Profile
    Science 2.0 has gradually been colloquially Smurf'ed into meaning many different things but at its core we have always intended to reboot science for the 21st century by modernizing publication, participation, communication and collaboration.   Collaboration was always known to be the tricky part and little progress has been made but groups like Mendeley are at least making it possible to better organize research.  Thankfully they violate the trademarks of last.fm and iTunes rather than us doing so and it's unclear if their system is better than PubMed, for example, but I am generally convinced the private sector will do better than the public sector so they have our support.   

    If I could figure out a way to make a secure data-sharing tool that goes behind organizing papers I'd certainly raise the money and do it but it is tough going.

    However, because it is always on my mind, I correspond occasionally with folks at the Leukippos Institute for Synthetic Biology and they recently wrote a guest post at Genome Engineering on how the logical structure of data-driven research and deducing patterns from a data pool will make it possible to improve the scientific method itself.



    Will it work?  Can feedback from the world community boost the speed of science discovery?   Sure, that is the idea, but between the idea and code is where the empires are - and no one is able to cover that gap yet, including me.  But if you have ideas, I am listening.

    Comments

    It's a good idea, Hank. The idea may never fly though.

    The example in the image reminds me of some of the Bayesian logic systems I've seen. If you were to add some of the AI concepts to it. . . . Most of the aps I've seen written for AI are coded in LISP (which looks more like Greek than Greek). Those problems can be worked out.

    What likely can't be worked out is the idea of sharing the information in an open manner. Most of the time (maybe) the really good ideas won't be shared. That's just human nature. If there is a good paper to be written, or it there is a bunch of cash to be made, the respondents would tend to keep the good stuff to themselves.

    I'm for it. If there are things that I could accomplish to further the idea, just shout.

    Hank
    Yes, the competitive nature of science makes it impractical globally but perhaps in groups it could be utilized.   If multiple groups are working on a similar idea, say something like DNA in the 1950s, successful research would give competitors a speed advantage (that 'standing on the shoulders of giants' business) or it could save competitors time and money not having to duplicate a null result.

    But lab equipment is bought by small groups so perhaps they might invest in a tool that would be a macro Science 2.0 thing but something allowed for collaboration plus the sort of data collation available in PubMed.  The workflow (that would be advanced enough for people to pay for) escapes me.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    hmmm. Like a CVN wired up to a database plus some sort of selective data modeling output? Obviously different needs for different fields of study.

    I think you are several steps ahead of me, but the local vs global idea has merit. A closed group of stakeholders, of whatever type, would make a lot of sense.