On Open Notebook Science: A dissenting voice chimes in
In my commentary on the Scientific American article on Open Notebook Science, I said that I wished that the author would have talked to some people who were against the idea. This being the internet, I should have expected that the blogs would take care of that.
PhysioProf thinks that Open Notebooks are just a bad idea:
Reading other people’s lab notebooks will decidely not provide a “leap forward in clarity”. You can barely understand your own lab notebook entries weeks or months after they occur. Lab notebooks contain a huge amount of totally irrelevant obscure information, the vast majority of which relate to failed experiments.
PhysioProf is right on that notebooks do contain reams of stuff that is completely irrelevant. In my case, these tend to be “Purified protein as before” entries - they don’t provide any new information, but comprise a large percentage of the content.
The thing that the Prof is missing is the opportunities that come from computer indexing of these documents. As with the scientific literature itself, moving the content of laboratory notebooks into an electronic form means that we can start applying the tools of computer science to extract valuable information from a resource that is currently underutilized.
Don’t get me wrong; I think there are major problems with Open Notebooks. The first is that, given the recalicitrance of researchers to write coherent entries now, when it’s pen and paper in the lab right next to the experiment, I can’t imagine trying to get them to do so electronically on a machine that may be in another room. There are the usual issues of people stealing data pre-publication and things like this as well. I don’t think they are as prevalent as many think, but I don’t think they are nonexistent either. Although a time stamp on an electronic notebook post might provide some evidence that you came up with the idea first, it doesn’t make a lot of difference once the competitor’s paper is out or their grant is funded based on your work.
My personal goal is the advancement of Open Access to science in all forms. I think that in the case of published papers, the path is more clear, less controversial, and requires less of a fundamental shift in thinking than for Open Notebooks. I applaud the work that people are doing in this realm, but I think that it’s premature to push for widespread acceptance of the practice at this time, until some of the more fundamental problems are resolved. I do support those who are very interested in the idea giving it a shot; only through larger trials can some of the issues be worked out.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
It shouldn’t be too hard to find something negative on Open Science or anything else being discussed on any forum :)
The argument that lab notebooks are not interesting to read is very true - but that is not how they are used. If the notebook is properly indexed on Google or any other relevant database, people will read the pages that pertain to their specific query. For reading a narrative of the larger picture, I think blogs (and papers and presentations) are good vehicles and made even better if they link back to pertinent pages in the lab notebook.
Also the people involved in the Open Science (and even more narrowly in Open Notebook Science) are not trying to make converts. We’re just making some noise to find each other. If it is not self-evident that transparency is a positive thing, there is nothing we can say to convince anyone.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I brought this up via a comment on PhysioProf’s post:
On an unrelated note - I’m rather close to Drexel. We should have a Philadelphia area Open Science blogger meetup.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Go 4 it PA.