Open data in science

Proposer
ghaggart
State

Accepted

Vote Score

2

Age

1543 days


ghaggart

@ghaggart - about 4 years ago

See the changes

@ghaggart edited science.md - about 4 years ago

Compulsory Purchase in the Public Interest

Patents and other forms of IP are used exercised for many globally important scientific and medical examples. Such protection is necessary for the organisations that produce the advancements, as they need to recoup the costs. A side effect, however, is that crucial cures and the like are subject to high costs and so spread slower than they perhaps could.

Patents and other forms of IP are used and exercised for many globally important scientific and medical examples. Such protection is necessary for the organisations that produce the advancements, as they need to recoup the costs. A side effect, however, is that crucial cures and the like are subject to high costs and so spread slower than they perhaps could.

We will investigate a form of compulsory purchase aimed at important scientific advancements that would then place those advancements under an open license, encouraging wider use at lower cost.

Reduce the level of bureaucracy at the research councils in order to free up funding for more research.

Encourage open access to data and research information and existing results

Enforce open access of existing published journal papers - no paywalls.

Develop standardised open data and software infrastructure for reproducibility and artifacts of published results.

Facilitate/enforce the publication of negative or controversial outcomes and results to studies.

Investigate the possibility of using online communities to perform more robust and wide-ranging reviews of scientific research project proposals.

Floppy

@Floppy - about 4 years ago

👍 on the principle, though I wonder if the wording needs to be slightly more precise to focus on publicly-funded research? Should commercial research need to be published in the same way? Trials and negative results should, of course, but I'm not sure of the nuances.

ghaggart

@ghaggart - about 4 years ago

Definitely needs more careful consideration and wording, and specific clarification on public and commercial research requirements. I'll make some changes.

Floppy

@Floppy - about 4 years ago

Great - the custom editor doesn't support updating existing PRs, but given your github history I assume you know what you're doing :)

philipjohn

@philipjohn - about 4 years ago

👍 commercial research could probably describe the pharmaceutical industry so there is something in applying the same rules to medical research, certainly. Probably a wording thing.

Floppy

@Floppy - about 4 years ago

@ghaggart are you still intending to make some changes to this proposal?

ghaggart

@ghaggart - about 4 years ago

@Floppy Apologies for the late reply on this, I'll have a look at the wording and make the changes asap.

philipjohn

@philipjohn - almost 4 years ago

This proposal failed because of time :(

I wonder if changes will reset the clock? @Floppy

Floppy

@Floppy - almost 4 years ago

It won't, but we could merge anyway as technically the thing passed, we just knew @ghaggart was intending to make some changes. We could do those as a separate PR instead. Our future automated system would have merged it. So we should. merges

Floppy

@Floppy - almost 4 years ago

@ghaggart if you still want to make changes to this, then do so in another edit. :)