Category: Blog

Posted on

UK research council policies on open data

I was looking through the website of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council the other day looking for policies on data sharing and open access. You can find the whole policy here but here are the edited highlights;

…BBSRC is committed to getting the best value for the funds we invest and believes that helping to make research data more readily available will reinforce open scientific enquiry and stimulate new investigations and analyses…

…BBSRC expects research data generated as a result of BBSRC support to be made available with as few restrictions as possible in a timely and responsible manner to the scientific community for subsequent research…In line with the BBSRC Statement on Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice, data should also be retained for a period of ten years after completion of a research project…

Ten years? I wonder how many UK scientists really work to that standard in practise (and I don’t include ‘I know its around here somewhere…’)?

…BBSRC supports the view that those enabling sharing should receive full and appropriate recognition by funders, their academic institutions and new users for promoting secondary research…

…BBSRC reserves the right to implement a more prescriptive approach to data sharing for research initiatives…

There are also detailed guidance notes and a FAQ for those who want to follow up.

The focus here is really on large coherent data sets rather than aggregating or indexing diffuse sets of online notebooks that I am more interested in. However I am in the process of writing some proposals that I want to embed an Open Notebook Science approach into so it will be interesting to see what the referees comments come back looking like on those. All proposals to BBSRC since April this year have had to have a section on ‘Data Sharing’ that explicitly includes published and unpublished data.

Posted on

The need for open data is getting more mainstream

Via Jean-Claude Bradley on UsefulChem, an article in Wired on making more of the ‘Dark Data’ out there available. As Jean-Claude notes this is focussed mainly on the notion of ‘failed experiments’ and ‘positive bias’ but there is much more background data out there. Experiments that don’t quite make the grade for inclusion in the paper or are just one of many that may be useful from a statistical perspective. How many synthetic chemistry papers give the range of yields achieved for a reaction? Or for a PCR reaction.

But its good to see more of this happening in the mainstream media and especially that Jean-Claude is getting the kudos for pushing the Open Notebook Science agenda. As this gets more mainstream it will filter through to the funders and other bodies.

Postscript: The article was originally commented on by Attilla at Pimm where there are more thoughtful comments on this.

Posted on

Limits to openness – where is the boundary?

I’ve been fiddling with this post for a while and I’m not sure where its going but I think other people’s views might make the whole thing clearer. This is after all why we believe in being open. So here it is in its unfinished and certainly unclarified form. All comments gratefully received.

One issue that got a lot of people talking at the Scifoo lives on session on Monday (transcript here) was the question of where the boundaries between what should and should not be open lie. At one level it seems obvious: the structure of a molecule can’t really have privacy issues whereas it is clear that a patient’s medical data should remain private. The issue came up a lot at the recent All Hands UK E-science meeting where the issues were often about census data or geographical data that could pinpoint specific people. It seems obvious that people’s personal data should be private but where do we draw the line? I am uncomfortable with a position where it is ‘obvious’ that my data should be open but ‘obvious’ that personal medical or geographical data should not be. Ideally I would like to find a clear logical distinction.

Continue reading “Limits to openness – where is the boundary?”

Posted on

Variations in reproduction charges for figures in a review article

Interesting morning negotiating the problems of getting permission to re-produce figures in a review I am currently writing. I wanted to reproduce figures from four papers, two from J Mol Biol (Elsevier), one from Structure (Cell Press), one from J Biol Chem (ASBMB). I could request permission for all three journals from copyright.com and as I’m in a rush I did this. Looking back at the journal websites now it appears that I should have gone to copyright clearance centre for the J Mol Biol ones and for the article in Structure.

At copyright.com the JBC article was charged at USD73 to reproduce a figure and at the copyright clearance centre it seems that the others are around USD23. Putting aside the issues of the price differential here I am wondering when these charges came in. The last time I wrote a review like this there was an administrative charge of $1.50 (I think) on one of the images I borrowed. Admittedly that was a couple of years ago. These are mostly representations of the structure of biological macromolecules so there is a clear creative aspect in generating the original figures.

Anyway, I’m tied in now, so will report back what the final charges are. I did consider asking the authors of the original papers for different, non-copyright, versions of the pictures but for most of these I feel I am reviewing the paper and should therefore reproduce the image. Anybody got an alternative view on this? I already took the decision that I woudn’t refer to any papers that I couldn’t view from my desktop (if I restricted myself to open access I wouldn’t have had anything to write about) but would I be better off leaving the pictures out?

Posted on

Scifoo Lives On session: Open notebook science case studies

Yesterday afternoon the Open Notebook Science case studies session was held as part of the Scifoo lives on sessions at Nature Island, Second Life. Jean-Claude Bradley organised, moderated and spoke first followed by me and Jeremiah Faith. We all spoke about experiences and implementation of different approaches to open notebook science.

Jean-Claude has put the transcript up here.

There was an active discussion about the need for more fun in science and the way in which science has become secretive has taken a lot of the fun out of it. CW Underwood talked about being sick of the ‘Secret Squirrel’ nature of science. One thing that was very encouraging was that Jeremiah said that in his search for his next post he had raised the issue as to whether the possible PI objected to him keeping his notebook open. So far he had had no objections.

Other issues that came up:

Open notebook science takes work and discipline.

It does involve some effort to get set up and to keep systems running as well as to maintain the observation that makes sure that things are running properly. CW pointed out that his PI would regard this as a waste of time. I can see this perspective being quite a strong one and a slow one to counter. Arguably the benefits of putting the effort in are not yet tangible enough to be convincing to people who are happy with the way their science works as it is.

What is the best system for holding the notebook?

Three different systems were presented. The UsefulChem Wiki by Jean-Claude using publically available hosted services. Our Blog based notebook which is a custom built and somewhat closed system. And Jeremiah uses Tex to generate a PDF of the whole thing. Jeremiah’s presentation included the comment that he had shown several people both a Wiki and the Tex based system and they had all preferred the Tex based one. This is the opposite of my experience where people seem to prefer whatever is closest to Word. This may be different communities or maybe just different people we have had contact with.

My feeling is that the three groups have evolved different systems because of three main things. Firstly a different initial aim, my initial aim for instance was not really an open notebook but an effective means of capturing data and procedures. Secondly differences in the procedures being carried out and the culture we work within. I am still slowly working my way through putting up Exp098 from UsefulChem in our blog system and this is certainly showing up some differences but I’m not sure I know what they mean yet.

Finally I think we have a different view of what the lab book is and what the ‘ideal’ lab book would look like. Jeremiah’s point was that he, and others, wanted it to ‘look like a lab book’, which is fair enough. I think my group is somewhere in the middle and Jean-Claude has pushed the idea of what a lab book is one step further. The finished product is a summary of the experiment – not precisely a point by point record of everything that happened along the way, that is all in the history tab – but the visual product is a clear description of the experiment that is immediately accessible to an outsider as to how to repeat the experiment and what the data and conclusions were. The point is,within the wiki framework, there is no need to worry about editing the page because the history is all still there. This means that it can be taken from the record as it goes – which is still kept – right through to ‘finished’ in a form that can go straight into a thesis or paper. I’m still not entirely comfortable with this, but I’m not entirely sure that this is particularly logical.

In any case in the end I think it will depend on what you want and why you want to go down the ONS route. There’s still a lot of work to be done.

Limits to openness

There was a discussion on where the boundaries should lie as to what can be open or not. I will handle this in another post because I think this is something I want to think about quite hard.

Postscript

On my way into work on Thursday last week I bumped into one of my RAL colleagues who, among other things, works on our communications and public relations. He thought that the ‘talk’ in SL made a nice little story and went to our central STFC comms people to see whether he might place it somewhere (website, newsletter, etc). Apparently the answer came back that they wouldn’t issue a press release (which would have been rather over the top in any case) because we didn’t have an institutional policy on Open Access.

Postscript 2

Jean-Claude has also reviewed the session at the UsefulChem Blog.

Posted on

The issues of safety information in open notebook science

Research in most places today is done under more or less rigorous safety regimes. A general approach which I believe is fairly universal is that any action should in principle be ‘Risk Assessed’. For many everyday procedures such an assessment may not need to be written down but it is general practise in the UK that there needs to be a paper trail that demonstrates that such risk assessments are carried out. In practise this means that there is generally for any given laboratory procedure a document of some form in which the risks are assessed. This may in many cases be a tick box list or pro forma document.

In addition in the UK there is an obligation to consider whether a particular substance requires a specific assessment under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) regulations. Again these are usually based on a pro forma template. Most researchers will have a folder containing both risk and COSHH assessments, or these may be held in a laboratory wide folder depending on local practise.

This month we have an extra person in working on our netural drift project which is being recorded in this blog. She felt that as the blog is the lab book it must contain these risk assessments and you can see these here. I have no problem with this and indeed it seems like a good idea to have this information available. So from the perspective of the group and electronic notebook practise this is good. 

From the open notebook perspective, if we are working towards applying the slogan of ‘No insider information’ this must necessarily include safety information. If we say how to do an experiment this arguably should include not just the procedure but other details: how do you work, what protection might you need, how should waste be disposed of. Many journals now request that any specific safety issues should be flagged in methods sections of papers.

But there is a flip side here. I am happy that our safety documentation is robust and works so I am not worried about ‘the inspectors’ seeing it on the web. Indeed I feel that having your work exposed is a good way of raising standards. It can be a bit bracing but if you’re not prepared to have the details of methodology public then should you be publishing it? Equally if you are worried about a bit of scrutiny of your safety documentation then should your lab really be operating at all?

However, what if someone takes this safety information, uses it, and still manages to injure themselves? What if the regulations in the UK are different, say, from those in the US. There is the potential for legal exposure here and this is the reason why most safety information from a chemical supplier says that anyone handling the compound in questions should use ventilators and full body protection (including for table salt and sugar). There is very little useful safety information available because anything that suggests that a particular compound is ‘safe’ creates legal exposure. We could put a disclaimer on our safety information to try and avoid this but that seems a little like cheating. Being ‘open’ means being open about as much as possible. I feel on balance that we should include it but there is a good argument we should leave it out or hide it for our own protection.

Posted on

The Southampton Electronic Blog Notebook – Part 4 – Visualisation

In previous posts I have discussed the setup and rationale for how we are organising our blog-based electronic laboratory notebook. This has covered how the blog is actually organised. In this post I will look at the issue of how we actually view the blog and extract information.

The organisation of the blog with a ‘one item one post‘ approach creates a problem. There are a large number of posts to describe even a relatively simple process. For instance running two PCR reactions involves at least three posts, even before there is any consideration of the input materials. We have created these separate posts so as to use the links to encode information. It is however important to make sure we can get the information back out again.

Dealing with too many posts

The first problem is the number of posts. The generation of the product posts creates a large number of posts with relatively little information content. These posts are essentially place holders that provide each sample with a unique ID. They are not terribly useful in the process of figuring out what was done. A simple solution is therefore to provide views in which product posts are omitted. This has been done on the Neutral Drift Blog. Compare for instance the view you get on first arriving at the top level with that of all recent posts (e.g. all posts in September 2007). The entry view provides posts in the categories that are not products, materials, or templates (safety should possibly also be added to this). The ideal implementation here would include a user configurable view that would allow combinations of different categories but this is some way off yet. The entry view does however provide evidence of the value of the post categorisation system.

The entry view is a reasonable facimile of a paper notebook (although in reverse order). Entries appear in order without necessarily being obviously linked in a logical fashion. So if two experiments are being carried on in parallel it is not immediately obvious which is which. This is no worse than a paper lab book but the aim of the blog notebook is to make it easier to see the relationship between items. One approach is to follow the links through and this can be effective although it can also be confusing if there are many links. The provision of a list of posts that link to the current post is also useful (‘What links here’, generally at the bottom of the post). Finally the identity of an experiment can be recorded as metadata. See for example the Sandpit Blog where there are two separate activities that have been recorded: a demonstration at a conference, and the replication of Exp098 from the UsefulChem Wiki. (Aside – this is a good example of where a configurable blog view would be useful. It would be nice to select ‘Section = procedures and Sandpit group = amh2007).

A point worth noting is that there is one significant way in which an electronic lab notebook can be worse than a paper notebook. The physical object of the notebook is very good physical mnemonic (‘I know that experiment is about a quarter of the way through this book’) . There can be a very real sense of dislocation in using an electronic lab noteboo, especially when the same material can appear in different places on the page.

Alternative views

The ultimate aim for the Southampton blog notebook is to enable sophisticated searching through database of posts and their links. This would make it possible to ask questions like ‘How many PCR reactions have worked using this pot of polymerase vs that one’ . However this is some distance off. In the meantime there are relatively simple ways of representing the information that provide an alternative way of digestion the information.

RSS feeds: One of the simplest alternative is through an RSS feed reader. Each blog generates a simple RSS feed that can be used as a partially configurable view of what is happening. A future aim is to insert more of the metadata into the feed to allow more sophisticated manipulation and filtering using tools such as Yahoo Pipes (or workflow management tools like Taverna?). This has the potential to allow a very powerful means of any given reader pulling up the information of interest to them.

Timelines: The Timelines tool developed by the Simile project at MIT provides a new way of looking at the lab book. The web service takes an XML file with time/date information and generates a visual representation of the timeline. This is currently configured to display each post title with a colour coded button based on the post type (see here). Again the ideal would be to provide a user configurable filtering and colouring system. Regardless of the current limitations however, this provides a new of looking at the lab book that is not possible with a paper notebook. It represents our first step towards finding new and more effective ways of getting more information out of the system.

Network views: An appealling possible view is to represent the network of posts in a visual form that can the be navigated. While there are various web services available that show the relationship between web pages (e.g. links within a site – seems to be broken, or related pages according to Google) these do not actually provide the right information. Because the set of posts is served as a blog the relationship between web pages does not have a direct correspondence to the relationship between posts. This would not for instance be the case with a Wiki where a single web page is also a post. However the web site link visualisers are confused by sidebar menus of both Wikis and Blogs. None of these are insurmountable difficulties and we hope to talk to the people at TouchGraph about whether they have something that we can use.

Ultimately this has the potential to be a very powerful way of exploring the Blog. it is likely that the organisation of the posts will contain information that will be directly visible from the network (materials that are dodgy will be poorly connected, separate projects – or people who don’t work well together – may be nearly disjoint graphs. Pivoting from a timeline view to a network view while viewing each page has the potential to be a very human friedly way of dealing with a large quantity of information.

Who is the viewer?

Different viewers have different needs and we haven’t considered this in detail yet. In another post, Jean-Claude Bradley has commented on the parallel use of UsefulChem Wikis and Blogs to provide both the notebook repository and the ‘public face’ of the system. Researchers, supervisors, administrators, and outside viewers will all have different needs. What we focused mainly here is tools that are more useful for the researchers using the system. For outside viewers there will need to be additional systems in addition to the need for appropriate tagging so that pages appear in searches. One size will definitely not fit all but keeping things flexible and configurable will mean that a small number of systems will hopefully cover most needs. Filtering and collating tools available freely on the web are becoming quite sophisticated and easy enough to use that they may do a lot of the work for us.

Posted on

Replication of Usefulchem Exp098 continued

I am continuing this in a new post rather than keeping mucking with the old one.

Currently I am working on reproducing the description of Exp098 from Jean-Claude Bradley’s UsefulChem Wiki within our blog based notebook to identify differences in practise. The reproduction can be found at;

http://chemtools.chem.soton.ac.uk/projects/blog/blogs.php/blog_id/15/

then click on ‘Usefulchem_exp098’ under the ‘Sandpit Group’ heading on the right hand side and explore from there

18/09/07 15:00 UTC I have added the next two steps of the experiment, the addition of methanol followed by the addition of NaOH to neutralise the solution. In doing this I have possible done something slightly the wrong way around as a reading of the original Exp098 suggests that this step was not originally planned but added later. I still need to add all the NMRs in a sensible fashion. This is it has to be said somewhat tedious but it does keep the relationships between things clear.

I have probably divided this up far more than is necessary in retrospect and the division makes it difficult to read. This probably is a distinction between the way we think about molecular biology and synthetic chemistry. Chemistry does often involve small steps with characterisation along the way on the various materials generated. Each of these steps only require a sentence or more to describe. Most of our molecular biology requires some form of table to detail the inputs and there is usually very little analysis along the way. The differences therefore seem to be: more things in, less in situ analysis.

It might well be more informative to actually do a synthetic chemistry experiment and record that in our system. Because I am doing this replication in bits of spare time I have a bit too much time to think about it as I go along.

Posted on

Replication of UsefulChem Exp098 in the Southampton blog notebook

In a previous post I said I would try to replicate an experiment from the UsefulChem open Wiki notebook within our blog system to see how it might look. This post is to record what I am doing as I do it. Thus this is the lab book I am using to record the process and decisions I have taken in using a lab book. The pages in the notebook can be found at;

http://chemtools.chem.soton.ac.uk/projects/blog/blogs.php/blog_id/15/

I have chosen to use Exp098 as this involved several different stages and modifications to the wiki page over many weeks. My aim is to try and record this in the way we would. This will involve some changes to the text and the process but I will try to re-use the original text as far as is possible. In the spirit of open notebook science I will make this visible as I go but as this may take me a while (days to a week or two) to finish this page is likely to be unstable and you may wish to come back to it. Ironically I am therefore using this notebook more in the way that Jean-Claude’s group use the Wiki than the way we use the blog.

  1. 13/09 16:58 UTC I have added two initial posts. In the first I have created a product from the previous notional reaction. Exp098 is a study on the stability of a previously generated compound, utilising a specific instance of that compound described in a previous experiment (Exp064). The second post is the initial description of the protocol. This is cut and pasted from the very first version of Exp098 and represents the experimental plan that I would put into the blog before going into the lab.
  2. In Exp098 the process is split into two phases, first a series of reagents are mixed and the reaction is monitored by NMR. After completion the reaction was neutralised and then extracted into organic solvent and dried before further analysis. Because analysis has been carried out on two different ‘samples’ I am therefore going to split the post up in what might appear to be a slightly odd way to an organic chemist. The first stage will generate one product, which will then be subject to analyses (further procedures). The first product will then be subjected to a second procedure (neutralization and drying) to generate a further product (the ‘real’ product) which will be subjected to further analysis.
  3. 13/09 17:20 UTC I have added the first procedure and product post. I now need to make a decision about whether I set up one post with all the NMR analysis from the time course in it or multiple analyses, one for each time point (I can do this with a template) with the data for each in that. Or I could set it up with one procedure post containing all the NMR descriptors but a separate product for each that contains the actual spectrum. I think the latter may be the best. This provides a way of scraping metadata for each of the spectra. It also means that the data can be added slightly later without directly editing the procedure post. I will create a new section for ‘Analysis’ to distinguish it from procedure.
  4. 17/09 13:06 UTC: I have now added all the NMR data for the time course. This was a laborious process obviously but it does meant that it is reasonably clear what goes where. For the separate HOMODEC experiment I didn’t bother putting the data in separately as this is obvious which goes with which. I haven’t as yet put in the NMR data for the starting material 064C which ought really to have been there first.