Download to read offline
Uploaded byKaitlin Thaney
"Making the Web Work for Science" - NCI CBIIT
This document discusses making scientific research more open and reproducible by leveraging the power of the web. It argues that current scientific practices and reward systems create friction and limit progress. Adopting open, web-enabled approaches could help address issues like lack of reproducibility and wasted resources by encouraging sharing of content, data, code and materials online. However, shifting practices requires a multi-faceted approach that addresses infrastructure, incentives, skills training and cultural norms.
More Related Content
Similar to "Making the Web Work for Science" - NCI CBIIT
"Making the Web Work for Science" - NCI CBIIT
- 1. making the web work for science kaitlin thaney @kaythaney ; @mozillascience NCI / 15 oct 2014 1
- 2. doing good ispart of our code 2
- 3. help researchers usethe power of the open web to change science’s future. 3
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8. our current systemsare designed to create friction. despite original intentions. 8
- 9. current state ofscience articles data patents 9
- 10. some have afirehose articles data patents 10
- 11. traditions last notbecause 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 11
- 12. downside of output-driven recognition systems 12
- 13. “There’s greater reward, and more temptation to bend the rules.” - David Resnik, bioethicist 13
- 14.
- 15. leveraging the powerof the web for scholarship 15
- 16. “web-enabled research” -access to content, data, code, materials. - emergence of “web-native” tools. - rewards for openness, interop, collaboration, sharing. - push for ROI, reuse, recomputability, transparency. 16
- 17. what do wemean 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 17
- 18. we’re rewarding the wrong behavior. at the sacrifice of scientific progress. 18
- 19. Source: Michener, 2006Ecoinformatics. 19
- 20. Source: Wolkovich etal. GCB 2012. 20
- 21. “... up to70 percent of research from academic labs cannot be reproduced, representing an enormous waste of money and effort.” - Elizabeth Iorns, Science Exchange 21
- 22. wasted ... $$$ time resource opportunity 22
- 23. “research hygiene” instillbest (digital, reproducible) practice 23
- 24.
- 25. shifting practice takesa multi-faceted approach. looking beyond “open” science. 25
- 26. infrastructure layers for efficient, reproducible research research social capital capacity open tools standards best practices research objects scientific software repositories incentives recognition / P&T interdisciplinarity collaboration community dialogue training mentorship professional dev new policies recognition stakeholders: universities, researchers, tool dev, funders, publishers ... 26
- 27. freedom to prototype and innovate. (connecting the dots.) 27
- 28. our systems needto talk to one another. leveraging open technology, existing infrastructure. 28
- 29.
- 30.
- 31. code as aresearch object what’s needed to reuse ? http://bit.ly/mozfiggit 31
- 32. code as aresearch object http://xkcd.com/285/ http://bit.ly/mozfiggit 32
- 33.
- 34.
- 35.
- 36. (community driven) metadatafor software discovery: JSON-LD http://bit.ly/mozfiggit 36
- 37.
- 38. our practices are limiting us. how to further adoption of open, web-enabled science? 38
- 39. infrastructure layers social software hardware 39
- 40. “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. 40
- 41. “web-enabled science” what’smissing? - access to content, data, code, materials. - emergence of “web-native” tools. - rewards for openness, interop, collaboration, sharing. - push for ROI, reuse, recomputability, transparency. 41
- 42. current activity: 235+instructors (60+, training) 4000+ learners 42
- 43.
- 44.
- 45. focus on buildingcapacity, not just more nodes. 45
- 46. fostering a (sustainable) community of practitioners 46
- 47.
- 48. shifting practice (andgetting it to stick) is challenging. (takeaways and closing caveats.) 48
- 49.
- 50. can we dothe same for research on the web? 63 nations 10,000 scientists 50,000 participants 50
- 51. what are thenecessary components? tools and technology cultural awareness, best practice connections, open dialogue skills training 51
- 52. Source: Piwowar, etal. PLOS. 52
- 53. 1. bake reproducible practices into the fabric of research. 53
- 54. 2. design tounlock latent potential of our systems. (the technology is already there.) 54
- 55. 3. rethink howwe reward researchers and support roles. (and don’t be afraid to hit refresh.) 55
- 56. 4. be mindfulof jargon/ semantics traps. 56
- 57. we’re here tohelp. teach, contribute, learn. http://mozillascience.org sciencelab@mozillafoundation.org 57
- 58. kaitlin@mozillafoundation.org @kaythaney ;@mozillascience special thanks: 58