Ahh, that’s your criteria. Well let’s see every lab book the drug companies ever ever filled out.
I’m sure the Sri Lankan’s want to know how to synthesize their own inexpensive methylphenidate, and much of that drug research was done on the Federal dime.
Why do we allow drug patents under that situation anyway? The fruits of public research should belong to the people, and the profits of public research should go to the people. I’m sure that’s what Sam meant when he talked about expropriating scientist’s data just because they accept public monies. :dubious:
Nah, someone just hates climate science, and wants to kill it any way they can.
How is mandating public disclosure of code and data, standard in just about every other academic field, an attempt to kill climate science, you sophist?
“Sophist”? That’s some pretty heavy stuff, there, Cap’n. Couldn’t you have shown some restraint, kept it to “buttmunchkin” or “goat cheese enthusiast”?
Perhaps in your dreams. Beyond that we all will require some sort of proof of that claim. Methinks you’re just talking out of your ass because you think you know better than all those darned scientists who are actually doin[sup]*[/sup] the work.
[sup]*[/sup]Sorry, too much Sarah Palin today.
It allows the drug companies to publish their research and data while ensuring they can still profit from them.
So what’s your objection to allowing climate scientists to publish their research and data while ensuring they can still profit from them?
Here’s an example of Capt. Ridley’s “data sharing” from a non-climatological but computationally intense field, satellite cosmology:
Yes, absolutely, it is all a fraud. These illegally obtained emails, which at best show that the researchers were trying to make a point in truth expose a vast worldwide conspiracy to invent global warming in the face of uncontroverted evidence of global cooling. Real published climatologists who show even the slightest sign of beginning to disagree are assassinated immediately by Al Gore. The motive behind this conspiracy is to increase the membership of the Sierra Club, known for its radical conservancy of wilderness areas that could better be developed as gated communities designed to keep out coyotes, known vermin.
That is all.
None. And nothing is preventing them from patenting their processes and programs if they choose.
However, that doesn’t excuse them from the law *or *scientific ethics.
Really, is the best the anti-AGW people have? It’s pretty damn sorry.
Hacked email from a relatively obscure university.
A couple emails that don’t say what the anti-AGW people say they do.
Some mildly negative statements about AGW critics.
You’re gonna to have to do better than that, people. Try some actual science.
Sophist indeed. You still haven’t explained how mandating open datasets would kill off climate science. Please, have a stab.
What sort of “proof” are you after? A questionnaire sent out to every science department in the land, with a full statistical analysis? My field (yes, Squink, unfortunately for you, I’m one of those “darned scientists”): releasing code and data under a GPL/BSD style license is pretty much mandatory if anybody is to believe your results. Nobody gives a fuck what your program computes if there’s a bug in it.
Notice how Squink doesn’t provide a link to the article where he got the snippet from, nor even acknowledge the full article? You know, the bit where it says the data has been released after a delay, here):
And when you actually get to the LAMBDA website, what do you see, other than a list of software packages for analysing the data, complete with source code (e.g. here)?
Never mind, because the snippet he originally provided did nothing to further his cause anyway. There was no expectation that the data would never be released, rather there was a delay in releasing it, which is understandable given the size of the datasets involved :rolleyes:.
I don’t know about the rest of this, but:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that this is NOT an ‘obscure university’, at least WRT climate studies. My (perhaps flawed) understanding is that, in fact, this is one of the major centers for much of the data and modeling concerning our current understanding of GW/Climate Change. No?
-XT
Notice how Squink forgot to link, and Captain Ridley immediately assumes sinister intent?
If you’ll bother to take a look through the WMP threads over at Bad Astronomy* you’ll see that many were highly pissed for years over continuing delays in the data release.
That the data finally was released does nothing to cover the gaping hole reality makes in your ‘but most scientists share everything freely’ fantasy.
Feel free to retract at any time.
*finding that is left as an exercise for Captain Ridley. His mad google skillz show promise!
Seeing as you still haven’t explained how releasing code and datasets spells the end of climate science, despite being asked twice, can anybody blame me?
There is no gaping hole. The dataset was released, along with source code for tools to analyze it (presumably you didn’t check the LAMBDA website before posting it; understandable, given the quality of your arguments).
Non climate scientist checking in.
I would be an absolute fool to post any of the data I have right now online for everyone to look at until I published. Another, better funded lab could look at my preliminary results and “scoop” me–that is, publish earlier and/or in a better journal. My research, which might be totally valid and potentially influential, would be lost to my name. My career would take a direct hit as a result.
Therefore, what is my motivation to do so? Academic scientists are generally not motivated by money. We’re paid horribly for people with our skill set. Our currency is all in our findings (and to a lesser extent, prestige, and name recognition). Handing out data is like handing out your paycheck–you wouldn’t do it, would you?
Of course, things change when you publish–you show most of your cards. You might say, “Well, make all your data available when you publish.” Really? Who’s going to hold it? How will it be codified? Who will set the standards? Every lab does things a little differently. I’m not opposed to the idea, but you have to understand why scientists keep their data close–it’s literally all they have.
nameless…how do other labs cross check you then? I thought the whole thing was about reproducibility. Or, do you send the data directly to other labs you want to cross check?
-XT
Who is saying data or code should be released before it has been analysed or published? Nobody. If you publish a paper, release all data and source code associated with it, that’s the proposal, and as you mention, this is pretty much what you do.
I’m a cell biologist. All my results are in figures. I have general findings, which other labs can try and replicate.
Totally hypothetical example. I claim–
Now, another lab is going to see maybe a before and after image of the cells, probably also a bar graph or a table. They’ll see this in a published paper, which will also contain a description of the methods I used to generate those results (i.e. what DMEM contains, where I got the cells from, etc.) That’s all they’ll see. They won’t see my lab notebook. They won’t see the images before I adjusted levels and cropped them in Photoshop. They won’t see my raw count data.
But if they fail to replicate the findings using reasonably similar expermients, I’m toast. There’s standard enough methods and practices in any given field that my claim can be tested. But don’t for a second think that anyone looks at my lab notebook but me.
I’m sympathetic to people who don’t want to release tools to other people–it gives them the same ability as you to derive new results. I’ll give you another example. I make transgenic organisms. These express fluorescent proteins. They’re great tools for studying gene expression.
Now, say another lab asks me for some of the animals. What do I do? If I’ve published on them before, I feel as though I have the obligation to let other people test my methods, but I’m actually under very few strict obligations to do so. And actually, it hurts to let go of them because I know people can take them and do experiments on them that I might want to do myself. And I made them! Why shouldn’t I be entitled to the data they produce?
Another example–lets say I make an antibody. These often come from blood drawn from rabbits. Once the rabbit is dead and you run out of blood, the antibody is gone forever. So you have a limited supply. Now, lets say another lab asks me for some of this antibody that I’ve had for a few years. What if I want to do some more experiments farther on down the road?
This kind of dilemma happens all the time.
Generally, scientists act ethically and make these tools available–it’s a surprisingly collaborative endeavor, and I’ve rarely asked for something that I wasn’t given. I just think people should know how much we have to think about letting the fruits of our labor belong to other people.
I haven’t heard of it before, but also I am not a AGW scientist, either.
But upon a bit of investigating, it seems you are correct.
In doing so, I found their official response to the whole brouhaha, for what it’s worth.
No worries, we’ll just impose an outside organization of nonspecialists with its own agenda vis a vis where the science should be going, and they’ll decide how and where you have to make all your raw numbers available.
That’ll be fair to everyone, and cause you no harm, right? 
We can call em the Data-Czars or something.