Open Source Science - Science and Sharing
summary
Argues that current incentive structures block scientists from using modern media, citing Wikipedia early academics and blogs that give no CV credit, and recalls 17th‑century secrecy (Hook’s anagrams) as precedent. Points to the recent NIH open access mandate — papers from NIH‑funded work must be public after six months — as a policy lever, and calls for new publication forms and repositories to share large results and datasets (for example human genome–scale data) so expert attention can be matched efficiently.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (8)
- 0:00Open science introduction
- 0:39Problem with scientific sharing
- 2:47Historical secrecy parallels
- 4:11Outdated incentives block sharing
- 6:22Government pressure for open access
- 8:09Role of scientific journals
- 9:14Beyond papers: new results
- 10:19Expert attention as resource
related talks
32mOpen Source and Open Science - a happy partnership?
01h 03mKeynote: Scientific Computing and the Gateway to Open Source
37mOpen-Source Science: Working with OSPOs to Accelerate Research in...
34mThe web of commons
35mHow OSPOs can Accelerate National Innovation Agendas
11mOpen Source Standards: Toward a more diverse and equal internet
47mThe Hard Parts of Open Source
46mOpen Source is Not Enough: The Importance of Algorithm Transparency