« Velvet Green | Main | Crosswords »

Whee. I checked Technorati this evening, as you do (seeing as the bastard spammers have destroyed the usefulness of trackbacks), and discovered that yesterday's post was spreading ripples in the blogospheric pond. It came first to the attention of Peter Murray-Rust, who has a thing (a good thing! — I hasten to add) about open access and open science in general, and thence to the open science community itself, in the shape of Cameron Neylon.

Funnily enough, Neil Saunders then picked it up from the OpenWetWare people, and I do some digging and find that not only did Neil do a DPhil but that he is now in Bostjan Kobe's lab. Bostjan is a long-time collaborator of my previous boss and from meeting him at Lorne he seems to have quite forgiven me for not going to work for him when I had the chance (or forgotten about it).

Brisbane, bleh.

So, anyway, it turns out that I had previously made contact with OpenWetWare, and talked about them over a year ago. Which just goes to show that (a) it's a small world and (b) incest is more fun than you'd think.

But all that is not really what I wanted to write about now. The OpenWetWare (have you any idea how difficult it is to type that?) project is a laudable effort to promote collaboration within the life sciences. And this is cool, but then I realize that the devil is in the details.

Share my methods? Yeah! Put in some technical detail? Yea–hang on.

For sure, the 'Green Fluorescent Wow!' experiment (HT to Peter) was pretty simple and straightforward: An easy cloning experiment with a slight cleverness in choice of reagents, no IP and nothing particularly smart. But I've got other experiments underway that are clever, and potentially very exciting.

So can I write on my weblog about them? And how much detail can I give? If I say "My protein seems to do something odd to cell-motility", is that an elegant sufficiency of detail? Surely people will get bored with generalizations, but am I right to worry, as one of our PIs does, that I might compromise my project by posting too much detail? Should I really be posting pictures of cells that are doing odd things?

It's not a case of "Can I trust you bastards not to steal my work?" but balancing the ideal of 'open source science' with the need to publish before anyone else. I have responsibilities — to the boss and to my cow-orkers —, but I also want to share the fun and joy and heartache of this vocation.

So it's all a little bit confusing, really. I want to bounce when experiments work, and scream and shout when I have a 'little technical difficulty'; but how much can I say without compromising stuff? Seriously, I have lots I want to write about, but am not sure whether I should.

And I really should try to remember my OpenWetWare password.


Cross-posted in part.

Comments

I think this is the real key to the whole thing. Will it compromise your work/career/future happiness? If everyone shared and was honest then it should work. What we need is some game theory/evolutionary biology person to tell us how many people it takes before we can support freeloaders.

But I agree it takes a shift in the way science works for people, especially postdocs, to be ready to risk making their knowledge base available. It would be absolutely key for people to get credit, and citations in some form, for making protocols/data available.

I say feel free to elaborate on the "wow" type experiments that aren't particularly ground-breaking, but keep the publishing-worthy details to a minimum- your can always elaborate once you've published/patented

I think I am a bit on the cautious side in general though.

My beta Gal, cautious?

Never.

It is difficult to do any type of Open Science when you are already in a collaboration or working for somebody. I think that has been the major obstacle for most researchers wanting to go more open. Obviously, your supervisor has to be aware of and on board with what you are doing. You might find that everyone agrees to making one narrow area of your work completely public.

The web, bringing people together as it should.

We left some comments on your open science post at Nature Network by the way - not sure if you prefer to communicate here or over there.

Quick point -- Technorati is borked by design as far as I can tell, I can never get much out of it. If you're after a replacement for trackbacks (die, spammer bastards!) you might try a Google blog search (you can even set up a feed) for better results.

Thanks Bill. I'll try that next time I'm feeling the need for the 'secret vice'.

By the way, be aware and avail yourself of the tools and possibility of setting up your laboratory website on OpenWetWare - a great way to globally network. There is also a heavy bias to molecular biology that might be good to correct.

Post a comment

Enter the code shown below before pressing post

About the Rat

Black Knight is interested in the interaction of science (as a day job and as a way of thinking) with his family, the wider community and literature. And tormenting students. Frequently polemical, sometimes serious, and hopefully always entertaining more

blackasknight@gmail.com

Life

All your base are belong to us The BioLOG is back, bigger and bad to the bone

Ricardiblog But Canadians are such nice people

LabLit From the blurb: LabLit.com is dedicated to real laboratory culture and to the portrayal and perceptions of that culture – science, scientists and labs – in fiction, the media and across popular culture.

Humans in Science Similar to 'Lab Rats', a very human look at the process of doing science and how daily life impacts our profession

Media

The Daily Grind Jonathan Sanderson, a TV producer interested in making 'popular science' shows

Nuts and bolts

Life Science Tools of the Trade This collective webblog focuses on learning about, purchasing and using life science products and services.

Science

The Scientist Nonymous Noodlings at Nature

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2