English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The technology world has the concept of open-source, whereby skilled individuals can contribute to a collective technology goal. Does such a thing exist within the scientific community, allowing individuals with scientific minds/background to contribute to science, rather than limiting it to institutions and universities? If not, why not?

2006-11-29 02:49:34 · 8 answers · asked by Michael B 2 in Science & Mathematics Other - Science

8 answers

Science is about opportunism. Dwarves standing on the shoulders of midgets.

Personally, I have no problem with advancement via Universities or specialist institutes. However, the influence of the benefactors is all too apparent in the world of academia. Multinational corporations have far too much say in where science is going. Of course scientists are not without integrity. Indeed, to use the Human Genome project as an example, not-for-profit altruism has come into direct conflict with the profit margin - known as the "let's patent this just in case it does something that benefits humanity, so we can make some quick bucks from it" approach.

I begin to suspect the meek will not inherit the earth until the rich and powerful have destroyed it.

2006-11-29 09:52:54 · answer #1 · answered by hi-re:zen 1 · 0 0

Hi:

There is a cautious effort to see how open source kind of system can be implemented in science. You can see something of this effort www.innocentive.com . This site is being in touch with Harvard also But I am not too sure about their link to Harvard.

But you can see the site on how you can post your problems or how you can solve others' problems..
But there is a vision among some of the scientific community to use open source to drive their innovation. And especially medical community is already using it.

Ram Kumar
www.rheakt.com

2006-11-30 14:38:07 · answer #2 · answered by Ram Kumar L 2 · 0 0

very almost no longer something interior the scientific community is considered certainty, that's shown to be real or shown to be fake. A certainty means that the certainty is the top all be all. yet, all real scientists understand that innovations are continuously changing, even nevertheless that's in lots of cases extra evidence to help the thought. think of approximately chemistry for a 2d. It took from the time of the Greeks until the mid-1700's until atoms have been transforming into prevalent. Then human beings theory that would no longer be divided. then protons and electrons and neutrons have been got here across. and then, extra complicated issues have been got here across, like radiation and organic and organic chemistry. each concept replaced into closer to the certainty than the previous. yet the place does it end. So returned to evolution... no longer something in technology is a certainty so neither is evolution. regardless of the undeniable fact that, evidence went into the creation of the thought and there is extra evidence being got here upon daily. Is the thought one hundred% superb? probable no longer. yet, that's an excellent step interior the excellent direction from questioning that the hand of god has something to do with technology.

2016-10-13 08:41:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

there are plenty of places where people can gather and share ideas etc., but when it comes to actual research and practical applications, the money involved is just too large for individuals. Maybe not in all areas of science, but I know that in a biophysics lab I use equipment daily that I could never afford myself. Enzymes and chemicals regularly cost hundreds of pounds, and that's just consumables. The machines are sometimes hundreds of thousands. I think that's why it's so difficult to share in this field and why you need the backing of a large institution.

2006-11-29 03:42:12 · answer #4 · answered by cheetara_2001 2 · 0 0

Unlike technology, science is implicitly open source. Most research is peer reviewed and published, and this process is open to all. Peer review and publishing precludes the award of patents.

However, more recently - and especially in medical science - businesses have taken their research out of the peer reviewed domain in order to secure patents.

2006-11-29 03:37:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Anyone can publish their work, not just scientists at universities and labs. I know that some sciences use astro-ph to post papers that have been sumitted for publication, or just what they want comments on.

http://arxiv.org/

2006-11-29 05:00:52 · answer #6 · answered by eri 7 · 0 0

Sure, it exists in the form of internet forums and such. For example, this one for us engineering nerds:

http://www.eng-tips.com/
.

2006-11-29 02:52:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

there are a lot of science collectives here in the UK and abroad working to make things especially in medicine

2006-11-29 02:51:46 · answer #8 · answered by julie t 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers