A Blog Around The Clock

4

Hmm, link doesn't work:
http://bjoern.brembs.net/news.php?item.379

Posted by: Bjoern Brembs | July 21, 2008 3:45 AM

6

Brembs says:

The goal of this reform movement is to have full public access not only to the published papers, but also to the raw data, ideas and reagents for sharing among scientists.

That is all good and a step toward the utopian world of transparent, complete and instant communication of advances that should help accelerate humanities climb up all the steep learning curves with which nature hems us in. But one flavor of communication is missing. My son is now a grad student in molecular biology and on his way to solving various puzzles about the jobs RNA does in C. Elegans, he finds his efforts repeat not the successes of others [of which he could read and which turn up easily in data searches] but their mistakes and dead ends...NEGATIVE RESULTS ARE SELDOM PUBLISHED. I understand that a researcher who is convinced that his job prospects rest partly on a history of making and publishing improvements to the state of the art would be reluctant to have his time wasting missteps on the record. But surely we all see how much time and research funding that would save every one else. Science moves forward as much by analyzed failures as it does by replicated successes, maybe even more.

The electronic galactic permanent chalk board and lab notebook we seem to be dreaming of should have plenty of pages for what did not work, place for commentary as to why it did not work and, if egos and reputations demand it, a way to anonomize the authorship of negative results. If the guy who's honesty can keep others from wasting weeks on what seems a promising idea is only known by name to those who have the diligence and are qualified by research interest to look him or her up to confirm and discuss the failure, I think that guy's esteem in the community will increase. And to those who have no stake in that specialty, his name does not casually acquire the stigma of a loser.

I imagine that a scenario like "darn! I wish there was somewhere I could have read that that reagent just screws up the protocol!" plays out daily in the laboratories of universities and pharama companies.

Failures in science are productive opportunities for the community. It is in politics that failure is only an opportunity for the other side.

Posted by: greensmile | July 21, 2008 8:26 AM

8

PhysioProf; You can probably guess that I do not have to write grant proposals to make my living. So yes, perhaps I talk of a more idealized world than the one most senior members of scientific enterprises find themselves in. But I still hold that the cut-throat view you put forth is not how science functions but how scientists and bureaucracies function...that is a significant difference because it suggests a cure.

The view that "there is not enough to go around therefore there will have to be some losers" may not be a fair paraphrase of your description but to the extent that it is, I fear it describes a very conservative mindset. If the enterprise is essentially economic and relates to the distribution of things of value which cost money to reproduce and distribute then that view has appeal to many. That is a misfortune of human nature IMO. But an idea or some knowledge that explains a failure should only cost humanity in its initial discovery...ideas cost nothing to propagate, facts cost virtually nothing to share. You only maximize the well being of a subset of individuals with that survival of the best competitor outlook.

Posted by: greensmile | July 22, 2008 1:09 AM