Contrasting Open Source Software and Open Access
I’m trying to write edgier post titles to really draw in the crowds, but I just force myself to stretch the truth only to gain eyeballs. I was going to write something like: “Unlike Open Source Software, Open Access research is freedom people will actually use”. This is indeed what I mean by this post, but I imagine it needs some clarification lest this guy hunt me down and pummel me.
I imagine most people who read PA are familiar with Open Source Software (OSS). This is software which allows the public to view and edit the code that makes it work. The guts of the machine are allowed to be examined and perhaps tinkered with to make improvements or modifications, as the user sees fit. Most people these days use software that is at least somewhat open source, such as the Firefox web browser, or Wordpress (the software that runs this blog). The thing is that although I’d classify myself as a heavy user of OSS, I rarely actually take the time to go look at the source code myself. I’m happy to imagine that someone who knows a lot more than me about these things has already done so and ensured that my browser is secure, my blog relatively free from spam (or at least has a filter to block the nastiest stuff), etc. I like using OSS, becuase I feel that it’s the more diplomatic and innovative way to do things, but I’ve never supplied code and only occasionally submitted a bug report.
Open Access, the movement to remove price barriers from consumers of scientific knowledge, shares some philosophical roots with Open Source Software. Both aim to take something which has largely been controlled by for-profit corporations and held as proprietary in some way and open that up to a broader audience/participatory culture. The great thing about Open Access is that there is already a lower barrier to participation than there is for OSS. You don’t have to be well-versed in a programming language to contribute. You can go rate a PLoS article, go add a protocol to OpenWetWare, or contribute to any of the other great web-based projects from your own desk in a matter of minutes. Of course, you should probably have some scientific expertise if you’re doing any of these things, but the actual time investment in submitting the content is very low.
Most people I’ve come across don’t really care about whether or not their software is Open Source. They may like the fact that it costs less than a competitor, or it runs better, or maybe they have heard good things about it. These people don’t worry so much about the philosophical reasons for making the code open source in the first place, and are even less likely than I am to worry about looking at the programming innards for themselves. A similar group of people will be critical for the widening acceptance of Open Access. People like family members of someone who has been diagnosed with an illness and wants to read the latest research. They don’t really care about the fundamental navel-gazing that is OA vs. subscription firewalled, but they just want some solace and information on their loved one’s condition. They probably won’t rate the PLoS article, but will consume it and move along. I feel, however, that OA will take a lot more experts per-capita than OSS, however. A relatively small and dedicated software team can release a product that is used by millions; a comparably sized scientific team might publish a paper that is read by thousands. This is what I meant by my misleading/evocative subtitle: that when OA becomes as widespread as OSS, there will be a lot more people involved in getting it done. It’s just the nature of the task at hand. Those of us who think that OA is worth it have a serious job to do in building the nucleation event that will crystallize the larger field of experts. I think it’s starting to happen, but as these things go it always seems to progress slower than one would like.
