Tag: osci-protocol

Posted on

A breakthrough on data licensing for public science?

I spent two days this week visiting Peter Murray-Rust and others at the Unilever Centre for Molecular Informatics at Cambridge. There was a lot of useful discussion and I learned an awful lot that requires more thinking and will no doubt result in further posts. In this one I want to relay a conversation we had over lunch with Peter, Jim Downing, Nico Adams, Nick Day and Rufus Pollock that seemed extremely productive. It should be noted that what follows is my recollection so may not be entirely accurate and shouldn’t be taken to accurately represent other people’s views necessarily.

The appropriate way to license published scientific data is an argument that has now been rolling on for some time. Broadly speaking the argument has devolved into two camps. Firstly those who have a belief in the value of share-alike or copyleft provisions of GPL and similar licenses. Many of these people come from an Open Source Software or Open Content background. The primary concern of this group is spreading the message and use of Open Content and to prevent “freeloaders” from being able to use Open material and not contribute back to the open community. A presumption in this view is that a license is a good, or at least acceptable, way of achieving both these goals. Also included here are those who think that it is important to allow people the freedom to address their concerns through copyleft approaches. I think it is fair to characterize Rufus as falling into this latter group.

On the other side are those, including myself, who are concerned more centrally with enabling re-use and re-purposing of data as far as is possible. Most of us are scientists of one sort or another and not programmers per se. We don’t tend to be concerned about freeloading (or in some cases welcome it as effective re-use). Another common characteristic is that we have been prevented from being able to make our own content as free as we would like due to copyleft provisions. I prefer to make all my content CC-BY (or cc0 where possible). I am frequently limited in my ability to do this by the wish to incorporate CC-BY-SA or GFDL material. We are deeply worried by the potential for licensing to make it harder to re-use and re-mix disparate sets of data and content into new digital objects. There is a sense amongst this group that “data is different” to other types of content, particulary in its diversity of types and re-uses. More generally there is the concern that anything that “smells of lawyers”, like something called a “license”, will have scientists running screaming in the opposite direction as they try to avoid any contact with their local administration and legal teams.

What I think was productive about the discussion on Tuesday is that we focused on what we could agree on with the aim of seeing whether it was possible to find a common position statement on the limited area of best practice for the publication of data that arises from public science. I believe such a statement is important because there is a window of opportunity to influence funder positions. Many funders are adopting data sharing policies but most refer to “following best practice” and that best practice is thin on the ground in most areas. With funders wielding the ultimate potential stick there is great potential to bootstrap good practice by providing clear guidance and tools to make it easy for researchers to deliver on their obligations. Funders in turn will likely adopt this best practice as policy if it is widely accepted by their research communities.

So we agreed on the following (I think – anyone should feel free to correct me of course!):

  1. A simple statement is required along the forms of  “best practice in data publishing is to apply protocol X”. Not a broad selection of licenses with different effects, not a complex statement about what the options are, but “best practice is X”.
  2. The purpose of publishing public scientific data and collections of data, whether in the form of a paper, a patent, data publication, or deposition to a database, is to enable re-use and re-purposing of that data. Non-commercial terms prevent this in an unpredictable and unhelpful way. Share-alike and copyleft provisions have the potential to do the same under some circumstances.
  3. The scientific research community is governed by strong community norms, particularly with respect to attribution. If we could successfully expand these to include share-alike approaches as a community expectation that would obviate many concerns that people attempt to address via licensing.
  4. Explicit statements of the status of data are required and we need effective technical and legal infrastructure to make this easy for researchers.

So in aggregate I think we agreed a statement similar to the following:

“Where a decision has been taken to publish data deriving from public science research, best practice to enable the re-use and re-purposing of that data, is to place it explicitly in the public domain via {one of a small set of protocols e.g. cc0 or PDDL}.”

The advantage of this statement is that it focuses purely on what should be done once a decision to publish has been made, leaving the issue of what should be published to a separate policy statement. This also sidesteps issues of which data should not be made public. It focuses on data generated by public science, narrowing the field to the space in which there is a moral obligation to make such data available to the public that fund it. By describing this as best practice it also allows deviations that may, for whatever reason, be justified by specific people in specific circumstances. Ultimately the community, referees, and funders will be the judge of those justifications. The BBSRC data sharing policy states for instance:

BBSRC expects research data generated as a result of BBSRC support to be made available…no later than the release through publication…in-line with established best practice  in the field [CN – my emphasis]…

The key point for me that came out of the discussion is perhaps that we can’t and won’t agree on a general solution for data but that we can articulate best practice in specific domains. I think we have agreed that for the specific domain of published data from public science there is a way forward. If this is the case then it is a very useful step forward.

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

The Southampton Open Science Workshop – a brief report

On Monday 1 September we had a one day workshop in Southampton discussing the issues that surround ‘Open Science’. This was very free form and informal and I had the explicit aim of getting a range of people with different perspectives into the room to discuss a wide range of issues, including tool development, the social and career structure issues, as well as ideas about standards and finally, what concrete actions could actually be taken. You can find live blogging and other commentary in the associated Friendfeed room and information on who attended as well as links to many of the presentations on the conference wiki.

Broadly speaking the day was divided into three chunks, the first was focussed on tools and services and included presentations on MyExperiment, Mendeley, Chemtools, and Inkspot Science. Branwen Hide of Research Information Network has written more on this part. Given that the room contained more than the usual suspects the conversation focussed on usability and interfaces rather than technical aspects although there was a fair bit of that as well.

The second portion of the day revolved more around social challenges and issues. Richard Grant presented his experience of blogging on an official university sanctioned site and the value of that for both outreach and education. One point he made was that the ‘lack of adoption problem’ seen in science just doesn’t seem to exist in the humanities. Perhaps this is because scientists don’t generally see ‘writing’ as a valuable thing in its own right. Certainly there is a preponderance of scientists who happen also to see themselves as writers on Nature Network.

Jennifer Rohn followed on from Richard, and objected to my characterising her presentation as “the skeptic’s view”. A more accurate characterisation would have been “I’d love to be open but at the moment I can’t: This is what has to change to make it work”. She presented a great summary of the proble, particularly from the biological scientist’s point of view as well as potential solutions. Essentially the problem is that of the ‘Minimum Publishable Unit’ or research quantum as well as what ‘counts’ as publication. Her main point was that for people to be prepared to publish material that falls short of a full paper they need to get some proportional credit for that. This folds closely into the discussion of what can be cited and what should be cited in particular contexts. I have used the phrase ‘data sized peg into a paper shaped hole’ to describe this in the past.

After lunch Liz Lyon from UKOLN talked about curation and long term archival storage which lead into an interesting discussion about the archiving of blogs and other material. Is it worth keeping? One answer to this was to look at the real interest today in diaries from the second world war and earlier from ‘normal people’. You don’t necessarily need to be a great scientist, or even a great blogger, for the material to be of potential interest to historians in 50-100 years time. But doing this properly is hard – in the same way that maintaining and indexing data is hard. Disparate sites, file formats, places of storage, and in the end whose blog is it actually? Particularly if you are blogging for, or recording work done at, a research institution.

The final session was about standards or ‘brands’. Yaroslav Nikolaev talked about semantic representations of experiments. While important it was probably a shame in the end we did this at the end of the day because it would have been helpful to get more of the non-techie people into that discussion to iron out both the communication issues around semantic web as well as describing the real potential benefits. This remains a serious gap – the experimental scientists who could really use semantic tools don’t really get the point, and the people developing the tools don’t communicate well what the benefits are, or in some cases (not all I hasten to add!) actually build the tools the experimentalists want.

I talked about the possibility of a ‘certificate’ or standard for Open Science, and the idea of an organisation to police this. It would be safe to say that, while people agreed that clear definitions would be hepful, the enhusiasm level for a standards organisation was pretty much zero. There are more fundamental issues of actually building up enough examples of good practice, and working towards identifying best practice in open science, that need to be dealt with before we can really talk about standards.

On the other hand the idea of ‘the fully supported’ paper got immediate and enthusiastic support. The idea here is deceptively simple, and has been discussed elsewhere; simply that all the relevant supporting information for a paper (data, detailed methodology, software tools, parameters, database versions etc. as well as access to required materials at reasonable cost) should be available for any published paper. The challenge here lies in actually recording experiments in such a way that this information can be provided. But if all of the record is available in this form then it can be made available whenever the researcher chooses. Thus by providing the tools that enable the fully supported paper you are also providing tools that enable open science.

Finally we discussed what we could actually do: Jean-Claude Bradley discussed the idea of an Open Notebook Science challenge to raise the profile of ONS (this is now setup – more on this to follow). Essentially a competition type approach where individuals or groups can contribute to a larger scientific problem by collecting data – where the teams get judged on how well they describe what they have done and how quickly they make it available.

The most specific action proposed was to draft a ‘Letter to Nature’ proposing the idea of the fully supported paper as a submission standard. The idea would be to get a large number of high profile signatories on a document which describes  a concrete step by step plan to work towards the final goal, and to send that as correspondence to a high profile journal. I have been having some discussions about how to frame such a document and hope to be getting a draft up for discussion reasonably soon.

Overall there was much enthusiasm for things Open and a sense that many elements of the puzzle are falling into place. What is missing is effective coordinated action, communication across the whole community of interested and sympathetic scientsts, and critically the high profile success stories that will start to shift opinion. These ought to, in my opinion, be the targets for the next 6-12 months.

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

Protocols for Open Science

interior detail, stata center, MIT. just outside science commons offices.

One of the strong messages that came back from the workshop we held at the BioSysBio meeting was that protocols and standards of behaviour were something that people would appreciate having available. There are many potential issues that are raised by the idea of a ‘charter’ or ‘protocol’ for open science but these are definitely things that are worth talking about. I thought I would through a few ideas out and see where they go. There are some potentially serious contradictions to be worked through. Continue reading “Protocols for Open Science”

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”

Posted on

Open Science at BioSysBio – London 20-22 April

As part of the BioSysBio meeting being held in London 20-22 of April, Mattias Rantalainen kindly asked me to contribute to a workshop on Open Science being held on the Wednesday. A number of OpenWetWare people including Julius Lucks and John Cumbers have agreed to come on board to help. You can see the draft abstract which is up at OpenWetWare. If you are the meeting do come along either to cheer us along in our quest to enthuse the next generation of scientists about Open Stuff or to argue with us about the details of how to do it. I wanted to flag two things up here. One is that we propose to start thrashing out a ‘Protocol for Open Science’; a charter of rights and responsibilities that we hope we can agree as a community to adopt as a standard, or perhaps set of standards.

I don’t imagine this will be an easy process but the aim is to start to define the issues with the aim of taking this forward over the next 12-18 months. An initial draft will be put forward at the workshop and will be made available for community discussion.

More practically Julius has set up an openscience email list based at OpenWetWare. You can sign up just by adding your OWW username to the wiki List page (you do have to be a member of OWW but this is just a matter of signing up). This will be useful for carrying on the conversation not just about standards but also about the all the issue surrounding being open.

I propose the tag osci-protocol to capture the blog based discussion and other discussion.