We have systems like the ones that the author desires (LabGuru, other electronic lab notebooks).
However, I don't think the author's premise is well founded. Every scientist dreams of publishing a beautiful, fully formed scientific discovery that emerges like Athena, immediately rocking their field and changing the destiny of mankind.
Most science is nothing like that. Most scientific results are comprised of unclear results in a specific model system that may have only speculative relevance to the real world (or to problems that people care about). Presentation, and public consideration and public discussion helps to refine models and cross-pollinate ideas that can lead to major discoveries. Little is gained by keeping data absolutely secret until a scientist is ready to publish.
Is that what typically motivates a scientist today? Is there any room these days for the Darwin-style scientist: someone who just has curiosity, lots of patience and care for recording things, and lots of stamina to keep thinking and testing? That's the kind of scientist I'd want to be. That is, I'm pretty sure Darwin wasn't motivated to become famous. He was just Darwin.
The author attempts to establish a false dichotomy between Scientists (author's capitalization) telling the Truth (implied capitalization) in their own precious snowflake time, versus the Truth (implied capitalization) never ever ever ever coming to light.
No argument is advanced to support the idea that scientists possessing snowflake secrecy increases epistemological veracity. In addition the narrative reeks of the worst form of fetishism of the scientific milieux.
The worst Hacker News link in years? It certainly pushed my buttons. Standards people!
If you replace scientists with coders then what you're saying is that programmers should allow people to see your code at any time, instead of allowing them to release the code when they see fit.
Since she states:
The first step is we need to upload all existing scientific research content and make that digital content accessible to anyone anywhere with the internet. Google is doing that. I admire sci-hub's efforts in this space. Sci-hub's team has done what I am too afraid to do myself.
The second step is we need to record all new information generated by today's scientists digitally.
Seems like the perfect recipe for publication bias. Give scientists the freedom to decide when they publish, so if they don't like the result they can just publish "never".
In other words: If you want unreproducible crap science to continue just go ahead.
No, it shouldn't. Instead we need a set of big simple to use open databases. you do not have to publish it immediately, but when it is done. And at least register a trial even if no paper is published.
Otherwise as practice shows scientists do not publish their raw data at all. Or worse, it ends up behind paywalls.
By the way author says the same as far as I can read and the title is wrong.
[+] [-] rgejman|8 years ago|reply
However, I don't think the author's premise is well founded. Every scientist dreams of publishing a beautiful, fully formed scientific discovery that emerges like Athena, immediately rocking their field and changing the destiny of mankind.
Most science is nothing like that. Most scientific results are comprised of unclear results in a specific model system that may have only speculative relevance to the real world (or to problems that people care about). Presentation, and public consideration and public discussion helps to refine models and cross-pollinate ideas that can lead to major discoveries. Little is gained by keeping data absolutely secret until a scientist is ready to publish.
[+] [-] afpx|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reposefulcats|8 years ago|reply
The author attempts to establish a false dichotomy between Scientists (author's capitalization) telling the Truth (implied capitalization) in their own precious snowflake time, versus the Truth (implied capitalization) never ever ever ever coming to light.
No argument is advanced to support the idea that scientists possessing snowflake secrecy increases epistemological veracity. In addition the narrative reeks of the worst form of fetishism of the scientific milieux.
The worst Hacker News link in years? It certainly pushed my buttons. Standards people!
[+] [-] the6threplicant|8 years ago|reply
Since she states:
The first step is we need to upload all existing scientific research content and make that digital content accessible to anyone anywhere with the internet. Google is doing that. I admire sci-hub's efforts in this space. Sci-hub's team has done what I am too afraid to do myself.
The second step is we need to record all new information generated by today's scientists digitally.
[+] [-] mikedilger|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jstanley|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hannob|8 years ago|reply
In other words: If you want unreproducible crap science to continue just go ahead.
[+] [-] AstralStorm|8 years ago|reply
Otherwise as practice shows scientists do not publish their raw data at all. Or worse, it ends up behind paywalls.
By the way author says the same as far as I can read and the title is wrong.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] doggydogs94|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aurelien|8 years ago|reply