kaitlin Thaney talking about Barcelona meeting - Cameron Neylon

ESOF conference discussion on open science. access to the papers, access to the data, technical infrastructure improved (machine readable) - Pedro Beltrao

Four tenets of open science from Science Commons 1. Access to the content 2. Access to the data (default is that data is in the public domain) 3. Cyberinfrastructures is required 4. access to physical materials (material transfoer agreements) etc. - Cameron Neylon

what is the difference between open source biology and open science ? - Pedro Beltrao

Is this the same as 'Open Source Biology'? Issues with baggage of Open Source and different licenses. Using copyleft approaches to make things open by making them closed can be dangerous - Cameron Neylon

Do we need an 'open sourcve suite' for biology? - Cameron Neylon

some sidetrack discussion on IP restrictions holding back "open source biology" in the sense of do it yourself biology - Pedro Beltrao

Segue into DIY biology - seem to have moved off open science per se - Cameron Neylon

important separation between DYB and open science, hopefully brings us back to open science discussion - Pedro Beltrao

Poiint that DIY is separate to citizen access to tax payer funded research - Cameron Neylon

The role of open science in science communication - Cameron Neylon

open data in the context of health services and tool development. Open Science as an ideology can be used a leverage to convince the public that making health data available is useful for service and tool development - Pedro Beltrao

The role of best practice and figuring out what that is - Cameron Neylon

Are their boundaries, healthcare, private industry - Cameron Neylon

open science can also be about better validation - Cameron Neylon

I think that last bit is critical - Deepak Singh

what is the currency of exchange in science - what is the motivation? - Cameron Neylon

is it difficult to accrue credit when inremental stuff is publishe online - Cameron Neylon

got distracted by doing a rant out loud htere :) - Cameron Neylon

What were you ranting about? - Deepak Singh

"Is there a Linux for open source biology?" - Pedro Beltrao

back onto whether it is appropriate for industry. Anyone got an example of a cash flow positive open biotech startup - Cameron Neylon

example of recombination tools given way for free to sell the reagents , etc - Pedro Beltrao

what is the misson statement? - Cameron Neylon

ptiched the notion that the next steo is a presumption of access to raw data and analysis. 'Science should be replicable' - also that Hawaii is nice in January :) - Cameron Neylon

Kailtin makes point that this is an ongoing converstion - please stay involved - Cameron Neylon

winding down now - will have to turn off for Jon Trowbridge talk - Cameron Neylon

issue of open source versus open API hasn't been raised - but then there wasn't much talk about tools anyway - Cameron Neylon

busniness models are an important part of the conversation - Cameron Neylon

Glad to hear that people are discussing business models - Deepak Singh

It was an interesting discussion today also because I finally get what Cameron has been saying on how people come from all sorts of different backgrounds so the it means something different to everyone. - Pedro Beltrao

I wasn't liveblogging but I took some paper notes with some points that I found useful/interesting, so will put a few of them here... I also tried to record who was saying those interesting things, in case people want to follow up with them - Shirley Wu

Jeremy England (labmeeting) had two comments. One was about extreme openness making it difficult for anyone to accrue credit for a discovery; an embargo until establishing credit might be more realistic, and then making everything open as quickly and as best as it can. - Shirley Wu

Jeremy's other comment was about issues related to the speed and process of peer reviewed publishing - it often takes years to go through a review process, during which time the data or results could be helping to advance science; also the process is completely opaque and has to be repeated essentially from scratch if the paper gets rejected and submitted to a new journal. All this peer review could be happening in the open with people benefiting from the discussion. - Shirley Wu

Related to both of these is the idea that the current reward system needs to be reformed. Chris Patil makes the point that extreme open science is very threatening to people whose careers hinge on having credited discoveries and prestigious publications. The current climate encourages competitiveness which discourages openness. - Shirley Wu

Cameron makes the point that doing open notebook science often raises the quality of your research - not that anyone really looks at your electronic lab notebook, but the fact that anyone COULD look at it makes you document your experiments better and write up the results better. Cameron also makes the point that open science is not to be imposed on anyone, "we think it just makes our science better." - Shirley Wu

I think it was Cameron who also mentions that enabling reproducibility is kind of one of the end goals of open science. In that sense it make be a key driver for advancing the open science movement. - Shirley Wu

Cesar Castro (from IFTF) mentions that somewhere around 80% of corporate IP is doing nothing, represents wasted knowledge, wasted opportunity. Patents are a kind of defense mechanism instead of being put to use. Open business models can actually be very successful though. - Shirley Wu

thank you all for keeping up with this on friendfeed and other means ... just sorting through it all now :) but stellar job, and thank you for allowing me to have this impromptu rant / session. - Kaitlin Thaney