Making the web work for science - RIT Dean's Lecture Series
67
kaitlin thaney @kaythaney ; @mozillascience RIT / 17 march 2015 making the web work for science
-
Upload
kaitlin-thaney -
Category
Technology
-
view
289 -
download
2
Transcript of Making the web work for science - RIT Dean's Lecture Series
kaitlin thaney@kaythaney ; @mozillascience
RIT / 17 march 2015
making the web work for science
doing good is part of our code
help researchers use the power of the open web to change science’s future.
(0)
power, performance, scale
our current systems are designed to create
friction.despite original intentions.
current state of science
articlesdata
patents
some have a firehose
articlesdata
patents
traditions last not because they are excellent, but because influential people are averse to change and because of the sheer burdens of
transition to a better state ...
“
“Cass Sunstein
downside of output-driven recognition systems
“There’s greater reward, and more temptation to
bend the rules.”- David Resnik, bioethicist
(1)
leveraging the power of the web for scholarship
- access to content, data, code, materials.- emergence of “web-native” tools.- rewards for openness, interop, collaboration, sharing.- push for ROI, reuse, recomputability, transparency.
“web-enabled research”
what do we mean by “open research”?
community technology practices
collaborative interoperable open review
participatory discoverable data management
recognition open tools sharing / reuse
mentorship designed for reuse
documentation / versioning
(example)
let’s look at an example
2004-2010$350 million spent 70+ tools created
we’re rewarding the wrong behavior.
at the sacrifice of scientific progress.
Source: Michener, 2006 Ecoinformatics.
Source: Wolkovich et al. GCB 2012.
“... up to 70 percent of research from academic labs cannot be reproduced, representing an enormous waste of money and effort.” - Elizabeth Iorns, Science Exchange
wasted ...$$$time
resourceopportunity
$60m+ for “management”
- Joe GrayOregon Health + Science University Center
“We are used to billion-dollar software, and it’s not what we can afford.
I am worried that unless we rein in our expectations, we will do this experiment again and we will get the same result ...”
instill best (digital,
reproducible) practice
“research hygiene”
(2)
our systems need to talk to one another.
applying lessons from open source development
code as a research objectwhat’s needed to reuse ?
http://bit.ly/mozfiggit
(community driven)metadata for software discovery: JSON-LD
http://bit.ly/mozfiggit
http://softwarediscoveryindex.org/report/
open, iterative developmentthe “work in progress” effect
Instead of cancer driving the development of technology, it was the development of technology that drove caBIG moving into position where this technology could be
adopted by individuals who were interested in cancer.
- Andrea CalifanoColumbia University
“
“
[Their] approach to fulfilling [their] mission was upside down.
- Andrea CalifanoColumbia University
““
(3)
our practices are limiting us.
how to further adoption of open, web-enabled science?
research social capital capacity
infrastructure layers for efficient, reproducible research
open toolsstandards
best practicesresearch objectsscientific software
repositories
incentivesrecognition / P&Tinterdisciplinarity
collaborationcommunity dialogue
trainingmentorship
professional devnew policiesrecognition
stakeholders: universities, researchers, tool dev, funders, publishers ...
socialsoftwarehardware
infrastructure layers
“web-enabled science”- access to content, data, code, materials.- emergence of “web-native” tools.- rewards for openness, interop, collaboration, sharing.- push for ROI, reuse, recomputability, transparency.
“web-enabled science”what’s missing?
- access to content, data, code, materials.- emergence of “web-native” tools.- rewards for openness, interop, collaboration, sharing.- push for ROI, reuse, recomputability, transparency.
fostering a (sustainable) community of practitioners
rethinking “professional development”
current activity:250+ instructors
(60+, training)5000+ learners
resbaz.edu.au
next global sprint: june 4-5, 2015mozillascience.org/collaborate
lowering barriers to entry(not expectations)
focus on building capacity, not just more nodes.
(4)
shifting practice (and getting it to stick)
is challenging.(takeaways and closing caveats.)
63 nations 10,000 scientists
50,000 participants
can we do the same for research on the web?
tools and technologycultural awareness, best practice
connections, open dialogueskills training, incentives
what are the necessary components?
Source: Piwowar, et al. PLOS.
1. bake reproducible practices into the fabric of
research.
2. design to unlock latent potential of our systems.
(the technology is already there.)
3. rethink how we reward researchers and support
roles. (and don’t be afraid to hit refresh.)
4. be mindful of jargon/semantics traps.
