Tag: open-science-charter

Posted on

Licenses and protocols for Open Science – the debate continues

This is an important discussion that has been going on in disparate places, but primarily at the moment is on the Open Science mailing list maintained by the OKF (see here for an archive of the relevant thread). To try and keep things together and because Yishay Mor asked, I thought I would try to summarize the current state of the debate.

The key aim here is to find a form of practice that will enhance data availability, and protect it into the future.

There is general agreement that there is a need for some sort of declaration associated with making data available. Clarity is important and the minimum here would be a clear statement of intention.Where there is disagreement is over what form this should take. Rufus Pollock started by giving the reasons why this should be a formal license. Rufus believes that a license provides certainty and clarity in a way that a protocol, statement of principles, or expression of community standards can not.  I, along with Bill Hooker and John Wilbanks [links are to posts on mailing list], expressed a concern that actually the use of legal language, and the notion of “ownership” of this by lawyers rather than scientists would have profound negative results. Andy Powell points out that this did not seem to occur either in the Open Source movement or with much of the open content community. But I believe he also hits the nail on the head with the possible reason:

I suppose the difference is that software space was already burdened with heavily protective licences and that the introduction of open licences was perceived as a step in the right direction, at least by those who like that kind of thing.         

Scientific data has a history of being assumed to be in public domain (see the lack of any license at PDB or Genbank or most other databases) so there isn’t the same sense of pushing back from an existing strong IP or licensing regime. However I think there is broad agreement that this protocol or statement would look a lot like a license and would aim to have the legal effect of at least providing clarity over the rights of users to copy, re-purpose, and fork the objects in question.

Michael Nielsen and John Wilbanks have expressed a concern about the potential for license proliferation and incompatibility. Michael cites the example of Apache, Mozilla, and GPL2 licenses. This feeds into the issue of the acceptability, or desirability of share-alike provisions which is an area of significant division. Heather Morrison raises the issue of dealing with commercial entities who may take data and use technical means to effectively take it out of the public domain, citing the takeover of OAIster by OCLC as a potential example.

This is a real area of contention I think because some of us (including me) would see this in quite a positive light (data being used effectively in a commercial setting is better than it not being used at all) as long as the data is still both legally and technically in the public domain. Indeed this is at the core of the power of a public domain declaration. The issue of finding the resources that support the preservation of research objects in the (accessible) public domain is a separate one but in my view if we don’t embrace the idea that money can and should be made off data placed in the public domain then we are going to be in big trouble sooner or later because the money will simply run out.

On the flip side of the argument is a strong tradition of arguing that viral licensing and share alike provisions protect the rights and personal investment of individuals and small players against larger commercial entities. Many of the people who support open data belong to this tradition, often for very good historical reasons. I personally don’t disagree with the argument on a logical level, but I think for scientific data we need to provide clear paths for commercial exploitation because using science to do useful things costs a lot of money. If you want people want to invest in using the outputs of publicly funded research you need to provide them with the certainty that they can legitimately use that data within their current business practice. I think it is also clear that those of us who take this line need to come up with a clear and convincing way of expressing this argument because it is at the centre of the objection to “protection” via licenses and share alike provisions.

Finally Yishay brings us back to the main point. Something to keep focussed on:

I may be off the mark, but I would argue that there’s a general principle to consider here. I hold that any data collected by public money should be made freely available to the public, for any use that contributes to the public good. Strikes me as a no-brainer, but of course – we have a long way to go. If we accept this principle, the licensing follows.         

Obviously I don’t agree with the last sentence – I would say that dedication to the public domain follows – but the principle I think is something we can agree that we are aiming for.

Posted on

What Russel Brand and Jonathan Ross can teach us about the value of community norms

For anyone in the UK who lives under a stone, or those people elsewhere in the world who don’t follow British news, this week there has been at least some news beyond the ongoing economic crisis and a U.S. election. Two media ‘personalities’ have been excoriated for leaving what can only be described as crass and offensive messages on an elderly actor’s answer phone, while on air. What made the affair worse was that the radio programme was in fact recorded and someone, somewhere, made a decision to broadcast it in full. Even worse was the fact that the broadcaster was that bastion of British values, the BBC.

If you want to get more of the details of what exactly happened then do a search on their names, but what I wanted to focus on here was some of the public and institutional reactions and their relation to the presumed need within the science community for ‘rules’, ‘licences’, and ‘copyright’ over works and data. Consistently we try to explain why this is not a good approach and developing strong community norms is better [1, 2]. I think this affair gives an example of why.

Much of the media and public outcry has been of the type ‘there must be some law, or if not some BBC rule that must have been broken, bang them up!’ There is a sense that there can only be recourse if someone has broken a rule. This is quite similar to the sense amongst many researchers, that they will only be able to ‘protect’ the results they make public by making them available under an explicit licence. That the only way they can have any recourse against someone ‘misusing’ ‘their’ results is if they are able to show that they have broken the terms of a licence.
The problem with this, as we know, is two-fold. First if someone does break the terms of the licence then frankly your chance of actually doing anything about it is pretty minimal. Secondly, and more importantly from the perspective of those of us interested in re-use and re-purposing, we know that pretty much any licensing system will create incompatibilities that prevent combining datasets, or using them in new ways, even when that wasn’t the intention of the original licensor.

There is an interesting parallel here with the Brand/Ross affair. It is entirely possible that no laws, or even BBC rules, have been broken. Does this mean they get off scott free? No, Brand has resigned and Ross has been suspended with his popular Friday night TV show apparently not to be recorded this week. The most interesting thing about the whole affair is that the central failure at the BBC was an editorial one. Some, so far unnamed, senior editor signed off and allowed the programme to be broadcast. What should have happened was that this editor should have blocked the programme or removed the offending passages. Not because a rule was broken but because it was not appropriate for the BBC’s editorial standards. Because it violated the community norms of what is acceptable for the BBC to broadcast. Whether or not they broke any rules what was done was crass and offensive. Whether or not someone is technically in violation of a data re-use license, failing to provide adequate attribution to the generators of that dataset is equally crass and unacceptable behaviour.

What the BBC discovered was that when it doesn’t live up to the standards that the wider community expects of it, that it receives withering censure. Indeed much of the most serious criticism came from some of its own programmes. It was the voice of the wider community (as mediated through the mass media admittedly) which has lead to the resignation and suspension. If it were just a question of ‘rules’ it is entirely possible that nothing could have been done. And if rules were put in place that would have prevented it then the unintended consequence would almost certainly have been to block programmes that had valid dramatic or narrative reasons for carrying such a passage. Again, community censure was much more powerful than any tribunal arbitrating some set of rules.

Yes this is nuanced, yes it is difficult to get right, and yes there is the potential for mob rule. That is why there is a team of senior professional editors at the BBC charged with policing and protecting the ‘community norms’ of what is acceptable for the BBC brand. That is why the damage done to the BBC’s brand will be severe. Standards, where it is explicit that the spirit is applied rather than the letter, where there are grey areas, can be much more effective than legalistic rules. When someone or some group clearly steps outside of the bounds then widespread censure is appropriate. It is then for individuals and organisations to decide how to apply that censure. And in turn to expect to be held to the same standards.

The cheats will always break the rules. If you use legalistic rules, then you invite legalistic approaches to getting around them. Those that try to apply the rules properly will then be hamstrung in their attempts to do anything useful while staying within the letter of the law. Community norms and standards of behaviour, appropriate citation, respect for people’s work and views, can be much more effective.

  1. Wilbanks, John. The Control Fallacy: Why OA Out-Innovates the Alternative. Available from Nature Precedings <http://hdl.handle.net/10101/npre.2008.1808.1> (2008)
  2. Wilbanks, John. Chemspider: Good intentions and the fog of licensing. http://network.nature.com/people/wilbanks/blog/2008/05/10/chemspider-good-intentions-and-the-fog-of-licensing (2008)
Posted on

Southampton Open Science Workshop 31 August and 1 September

An update on the Workshop that I announced previously. We have a number of people confirmed to come down and I need to start firming up numbers. I will be emailing a few people over the weekend so sorry if you get this via more than one route. The plan of attack remains as follows:

Meet on evening of Sunday 31 August in Southampton, most likely at a bar/restaurant near the University to coordinate/organise the details of sessions.

Commence on Monday at ~9:30 and finish around 4:30pm (with the option of discussion going into the evening) with three or four sessions over the course of the day broadly divided into the areas of tools, social issues, and policy. We have people interested and expert in all of these areas coming so we should be able to to have a good discussion. The object is to keep it very informal but to keep the discussion productive. Numbers are likely to be around 15-20 people. For those not lucky enough to be in the area we will aim to record and stream the sessions, probably using a combination of dimdim, mogulus, and slideshare. Some of these may require you to be signed into our session so if you are interested drop me a line at the account below.

To register for the meeting please send me an email to my gmail account (cameronneylon). To avoid any potential confusion, even if you have emailed me in the past week or so about this please email again so that I have a comprehensive list in one place. I will get back to you with a request via PayPal for £15 to cover coffees and lunch for the day (so if you have a PayPal account you want to use please send the email from that address). If there is a problem with the cost please state so in your email and we will see what we can do. We can suggest options for accomodation but will ask you to sort it out for yourself.

I have set up a wiki to discuss the workshop which is currently completely open access. If I see spam or hacking problems I will close it down to members only (so it would be helpful if you could create an account) but hopefully it might last a few weeks in the open form. Please add your name and any relevant details you are happy to give out to the Attendees page and add any presentations or demos you would be interested in giving, or would be interested in hearing about, on the Programme suggestion page.

Posted on

Open Science Workshop at Southampton – 31 August and 1 September 2008

Southampton, England, United-Kingdom

Image via Wikipedia

I’m aware I’ve been trailing this idea around for sometime now but its been difficult to pin down due to issues with room bookings. However I’m just going to go ahead and if we end up meeting in a local bar then so be it! If Southampton becomes too difficult I might organise to have it at RAL instead but Southampton is more convenient in many ways.

Science Blogging 2008: London will be held on August 30 at the Royal Institution and as a number of people are coming to that it seemed a good opportunity to get a few more people together to have a get together and discuss how we might move things forward.  This now turns out to be one of a series of such workshops following on from Collaborating for the future of open science, organised by Science Commons as a satellite meeting of EuroScience Open Forum in Barcelona next month, BioBarCamp/Scifoo from 5-10 August and a possible Open Science Workshop at Stanford on Monday 11 August, as well as the Open Science Workshop in Hawaii (can’t let the bioinformaticians have all the good conference sites to themselves!) at the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.

For the Southampton meeting I would propose that we essentially look at having four themed sessions: Tools, Data standards, Policy/Funding, and Projects. Within this we adopt an unconference style where we decide who speaks based on who is there and want to present something. My ideas is essentially to meet on the Sunday evening at a local hostelry to discuss and organise the specifics of the program for Monday. On the Monday we spend the day with presentations and leave plenty of room for discussion. People can leave in the afternoon, or hang around into the evening for further discussion. We have absolutely zero, zilch, nada funding available so I will be asking for a contribution (to be finalised later but probably £10-15 each) to cover coffee/tea and lunch on the Monday.

Zemanta Pixie

Posted on

Data is free or hidden – there is no middle ground

Science commons and other are organising a workshop on Open Science issues as a satellite meeting of the European Science Open Forum meeting in July. This is pitched as an opportunity to discuss issues around policy, funding, and social issues with an impact on the ‘Open Research Agenda’. In preparation for that meeting I wanted to continue to explore some of the conflicts that arise between wanting to make data freely available as soon as possible and the need to protect the interests of the researchers that have generated data and (perhaps) have a right to the benefits of exploiting that data.

John Cumbers proposed the idea of a ‘Protocol’ for open science that included the idea of a ‘use embargo’; the idea that when data is initially made available, no-one else should work on it for a specified period of time. I proposed more generally that people could ask that people leave data alone for any particular period of time, but that there ought to be an absolute limit on this type of embargo to prevent data being tied up. These kinds of ideas revolve around the need to forge community norms – standards of behaviour that are expected, and to some extent enforced, by a community. The problem is that these need to evolve naturally, rather than be imposed by committee. If there isn’t community buy in then proposed standards have no teeth.

An alternative approach to solving the problem is to adopt some sort ‘license’. A legal or contractual framework that creates obligation about how data can be used and re-used. This could impose embargoes of the type that John suggested, perhaps as flexible clauses in the license. One could imagine an ‘Open data – six month analysis embargo’ license. This is attractive because it apparently gives you control over what is done with your data while also allowing you to make it freely available. This is why people who first come to the table with an interest in sharing content always start with CC-BY-NC. They want everyone to have their content, but not to make money out of it. It is only later that people realise what other effects this restriction can have.

I had rejected the licensing approach because I thought it could only work in a walled garden, something which goes against my view of what open data is about. More recently John Wilbanks has written some wonderfully clear posts on the nature of the public domain, and the place of data in it, that make clear that it can’t even work in a walled garden. Because data is in the public domain, no contractual arrangement can protect your ability to exploit that data, it can only give you a legal right to punish someone who does something you haven’t agreed to. This has important consequences for the idea of Open Science licences and standards.

If we argue as an ‘Open Science Movement’ that data is in and must remain in the public domain then, if we believe this is in the common good, we should also argue for the widest possible interpretation of what is data. The results of an experiment, regardless of how clever its design might be, are a ‘fact of nature’, and therefore in the public domain (although not necessarily publically available). Therefore if any person has access to that data they can do whatever the like with it as long as they are not bound by a contractual arrangement. If someone breaks a contractual arrangement and makes the data freely available there is no way you can get that data back. You can punish the person who made it available if they broke a contract with you. But you can’t recover the data. The only way you can protect the right to exploit data is by keeping it secret. The is entirely different to creative content where if someone ignores or breaks licence terms then you can legally recover the content from anyone that has obtained it.

Why does this matter to the Open Science movement? Aren’t we all about making the data available for people to do whatever anyway? It matters because you can’t place any legal limitations on what people do with data you make available. You can’t put something up and say ‘you can only use this for X’ or ‘you can only use it after six months’ or even ‘you must attribute this data’. Even in a walled garden, once there is one hole, the entire edifice is gone. The only way we can protect the rights of those who generate data to benefit from exploiting it is through the hard work of developing and enforcing community norms that provide clear guidelines on what can be done. It’s that or simply keep the data secret.

What is important is that we are clear about this distinction between legal and ethical protections. We must not tell people that their data can be protected because essentially they can’t. And this is a real challenge to the ethos of open data because it means that our only absolutely reliable method for protecting people is by hiding data. Strong community norms will, and do, help but there is a need to be careful about how we encourage people to put data out there. And we need to be very strong in condemning people who do the ‘wrong’ thing. Which is why a discussion on what we believe is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ behaviour is incredibly important. I hope that discussion kicks off in Barcelona and continues globally over the next few months. I know that not everyone can make the various meetings that are going on – but between them and the blogosphere and the ‘streamosphere‘ we have the tools, the expertise, and hopefully the will, to figure these things out.

Related articles

Zemanta Pixie

Posted on

More on the science exchance – or building and capitalising a data commons

Image from Wikipedia via ZemantaBanknotes from all around the World donated by visitors to the British Museum, London

Following on from the discussion a few weeks back kicked off by Shirley at One Big Lab and continued here I’ve been thinking about how to actually turn what was a throwaway comment into reality:

What is being generated here is new science, and science isn’t paid for per se. The resources that generate science are supported by governments, charities, and industry but the actual production of science is not supported. The truly radical approach to this would be to turn the system on its head. Don’t fund the universities to do science, fund the journals to buy science; then the system would reward increased efficiency.

There is a problem at the core of this. For someone to pay for access to the results, there has to be a monetary benefit to them. This may be through increased efficiency of their research funding but that’s a rather vague benefit. For a serious charitable or commercial funder there has to be the potential to either make money, or at least see that the enterprise could become self sufficient. But surely this means monetizing the data somehow? Which would require restrictive licences, which is not at the end what we’re about.

The other story of the week has been the, in the end very useful, kerfuffle caused by ChemSpider moving to a CC-BY-SA licence, and the confusion that has been revealed regarding data, licencing, and the public domain. John Wilbanks, whose comments on the ChemSpider licence, sparked the discussion has written two posts [1, 2] which I found illuminating and have made things much clearer for me. His point is that data naturally belongs in the public domain and that the public domain and the freedom of the data itself needs to be protected from erosion, both legal, and conceptual that could be caused by our obsession with licences. What does this mean for making an effective data commons, and the Science Exchange that could arise from it, financially viable? Continue reading “More on the science exchance – or building and capitalising a data commons”

Posted on

Somewhat more complete report on BioSysBio workshop

The Queen's Tower, Imperial CollegeImage via Wikipedia

This has taken me longer than expected to write up. Julius Lucks, John Cumbers, and myself lead a workshop on Open Science on Monday 21st at the BioSysBio meeting at Imperial College London.  I had hoped to record screencast, audio, and possibly video as well but in the end the laptop I am working off couldn’t cope with both running the projector and Camtasia at the same time with reasonable response rates (its a long story but in theory I get my ‘proper’ laptop back tomorrow so hopefully better luck next time). We had somewhere between 25 and 35 people throughout most of the workshop and the feedback was all pretty positive. What I found particularly exciting was that, although the usual issues of scooping, attribution, and the general dishonestly of the scientific community were raised, they were only in passing, with a lot more of the discussion focussing on practical issues. Continue reading “Somewhat more complete report on BioSysBio workshop”