Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 15 September 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/455273a
News
Data on display
Two researchers explain why they're posting their experimental results online.
Risking being scooped and having patents refused, some scientists are posting their data online as they produce them. Organic chemist Jean-Claude Bradley of Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and biochemist Cameron Neylon of the University of Southampton, UK, describe this 'open notebook' approach.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
This is the way to go. But there is the problem of securing rights to invention that needs to be solved. I posted one of my inventions on the following website in the past: http://www.instructables.com/id/SODA-CAN-HYDROGEN-GENERATOR/ Now I am trying to convince a major institution to acknowledge me as the inventor. Apparently this institution "discovered" the process afterward. The fact that I had sent them an e-mail directing their attention to my invention seemed to have helped their creative juices at the time. Luckily, I took out a patent on that invention. But I would appreciate it if the author and Drs. Neylon and Bradley can give me suggestions on how to establish my rights as inventor without going into costly litigation with that major institution. Sadly, the invention mentioned here is the second one of my inventions being claimed unfairly by a major institution. These institutions have lawyers on retainers working for them permanently. These lawyers unashamedly bend the truth in order to secure for their institutions false claims of invention. It is tough and costly for a single inventor to go up against major institutions and I would discourage people from publishing their data on the internet at this time.
I am an undergrad at Drexel University and it makes me proud to see I am attending a school where this sort of innovative thinking coming from my school. It would only make sense to share results on the web. To synergise the brainpower of scientists worldwide would increase the speed of the advancement of knowledge dramatically.
This may be a fine news catcher, but I find this "open notebook" idea completely irrelevant to the actual advancement of science. There are already far too many peer reviewed papers published, such that it has become completely impossible for someone to follow the scientific litterature. To imagine that someone in their right mind will go and lookup someone else's notebook is ludicrous ! I direct a small research group of half a dozen people, and I already struggle just to keep up with the experiments they are running. I am all for the idea of preprint servers, where scientists can post synthetic reports of their data, including the negative ones, and preliminary results of projects that may have been discontinued. But notebooks ??? Give me a break !
I'm a student of psychology and I think that this kind of ideas are the future of scientific publishing. There are already journals like PloS, but it's not enough. Nowadays there's lots of research, too much to get it all published. There are also, for example, some research made by students that are never published anywhere, because oftenly there's no way to publish the data if you're just a student, or it is just "not that interesting" (you can ask--for whom?). Of course not all data is that interesting to get published in well-known journals. But it could get published in another place, eg. 'open notebook' and used for meta-analysis by someone else--wouldn't it be great to have a database of thousands research programs by students on some area, that they made on their classes, to use their results? This way one could get to results from different samples using different methods--perfect for meta-analyzing! We (students) already make lots of research. If there was a possibility to publish the data in some 'place' those could be visible for more people than just colleagues attending the same classes. This would also be a fine way to prevent publishing bias. The future, as I view it, is that there would be some traditional journals, publishing the "important" research papers, and there would be an 'open' (...notebook) places where anything could get published. The first ones, would be confident, reviewed etc. The seconds, would be "use it at your own risk" ones, but I think that some reviewing (Wiki-like style for eg.) could be possible. What is needed are a place, and some general standards to be applied. I think this is the future of scientific publishing, the "Science 2.0".
Josh - thanks for the kind words. Several Drexel undergraduate students have participated in my lab on our malaria project and I think it is helpful for them to have record of what they did on the wiki. It is a way for them to directly contribute to the scientific process well before full articles are written up.
Etienne - the purpose of a lab notebook is not to be read like a magazine. It would make as much sense to read a phone book in that way. The purpose is to make as much information as possible available to other researchers who are trying to replicate or debug very specific types of experiments.
Etienne - the purpose of a lab notebook is not to be read like a magazine. It would make as much sense to read a phone book in that way. The purpose is to make as much information as possible available to other researchers who are trying to replicate or debug very specific types of experiments.
Timo - as you point out there could be much value in the meta-analysis of open lab notebooks. This was brought up at the eResearch conference in Oxford last week. By making everything available one could study more closely HOW science actually gets done. For example, how many error corrections, the ratio of failed to successful experiments, the timeline of generating conclusions from data, etc.
Like practically all other things or processes in life, this refreshing open-notebook approach is not without its pros and cons. While it makes one?s research more transparent, it also allows for convenient theft of data, not to mention reinventing or manipulating of such data. Most researchers have been constantly under the duress of ?publish or perish?. Thus, sometimes some would go to the extremes of faking results or plain plagiary in order to secure a position. That said, I would certainly offer my support to openness. Perhaps this would lead to a less scandalous global scientific endeavor. (btt1943@yahoo.com)
I applaud Jean-Claude-Bradley and Cameron Neylon for doing what is right. Science is in my opinion sacred, and the joy of discovery is diminished or destroyed when the product is used for selfish ends. Oliver K. Manuel
This is great! a truly scientific spirit and a very brave initiative, let's hope that this behavior spreads to many groups
The concept of Open Notebook science is overall a positive outlook. Patent related issues however need to be considered. Particularly, contents of open notebook may unjustifiably be cited in patent search reports as prior art. This will jeopardize a genuine invention.
The most beautiful and freely available set of data are the 3,000 mass data points that represent the rest masses of every atom in the visible universe and its nuclear energy. These data are maintained, up-dated and provided freely to the public by Brookhaven's National Nuclear Data Center in Upton, New York. http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/SolarEnergy.htm http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm Oliver K. Manuel, http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09