[p2p-research] Announcing Open Science Summit 29-31 July Berkeley

Thu Jun 3 05:21:34 CEST 2010

Hi Joseph, thanks for the good news,

can you post it on Ning right away and on the regular blog post-dated on the
6th?

once it's one, I will also facebook/twitter it ...

Michel

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Joseph Jackson <joseph.jackson at gmail.com>wrote:

> Michel I have been completely buried organizing the first Summit.  Please
> help spread the word to all your many mailing lists.  I can post to P2P blog
> myself if you want.
>
> "This summer, scientists, hackers, students, patients, and activists will
> convene to discuss the future of our science/technology paradigm. Topics
> include: Synthetic Biology, Gene Patents, Open Data, Open Access,
> Microfinance for Science, DIY science, DIY Biology, Alternative Funding for
> Science, Open Source Drugs, Patent Pools, Open Health/Medicine, Patient
> Advocacy for Innovation
>
> Ready for a rapid, radical reboot of the global innovation system for a
> truly free and open 21st century knowledge economy? Join us at the first
> Open Science Summit, an attempt to gather all stakeholders who want to
> liberate our scientific and technological commons to enable an new era of
> decentralized, distributed innovation to solve humanity's greatest
> challenges."
>
>
>
> http://opensciencesummit.com/schedule/
>
> http://opensciencesummit.com/presenters/
>  Enlightenment 2.0: Unleashing the Open Science Revolution<http://opensciencesummit.com/2010/05/12/enlightenment-2-0-unleashing-the-open-science-revolution-2/> Posted
> on : 12-05-2010 | By : jpjacks | In : Discussion<http://opensciencesummit.com/catagories/discussion/>
> 2
>
> Renowned physicist Freeman Dyson identifies<http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/9361/Default.aspx>two kinds of scientific revolutions, those driven by new concepts
> (theoretical), and those driven by new tools (technological).
>
> In the last 500 years we’ve witnessed paradigm shattering conceptual shifts
> associated with names such as Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, and, Einstein.
> Simultaneously, the evolution of technology drives progress in unpredictable
> ways—Galileo borrowed principles from the technology of eye-glasses to
> pioneer the use of the telescope in astronomy, while Watson and Crick relied
> on Rosalind Franklin’s skill with X-ray diffraction (a tool from physics) to
> probe the structure of life.  (Undoubtedly, Franklin’s contribution would
> have been more fully recognized under a true Open Science Paradigm.)
>
> To this classification of scientific revolutions, we can now add a third
> kind, an *Organizational Revolution*, the advent of a truly “Open
> Science,” which will profoundly affect the pace and character of subsequent
> theory and tool-driven paradigm shifts.
>
> The 21st century is off to a rocky start, and as economic and ecological
> crises converge, there is no shortage of dire predictions. On the other
> hand, politicians and pundits point to the expectation that Science and
> Technology will let humanity invent its way out of the problems we’ve
> created. This rosy outlook ignores a deep crisis that has been brewing and
> could hamstring our innovative capacity when we most urgently need it.
>
> Despite nostalgic myths that Science is the realm of open inquiry, reasoned
> debate, and the pursuit of objective truth, it has always been politicized,
> though never to the dangerous degree attained just in the past decade. The
> viciousness of the fight over embryonic stem cell research, the conflict
> over creationism, and the politics of climate change are unprecedented new
> lows. Public confidence in science and technology is deeply shaken, as the
> outcry over genetically modified organisms attests. When biotechnology, the
> veritable “toolkit of life,” that could feed the hungry, heal the ill, and
> fuel the economy without despoiling the environment, is greeted with
> suspicion and downright hostility, we must acknowledge a deep failure.
> Citizens and consumers correctly worry that science has sold them out, as
> companies compromise safety and engineering standards in the dash to control
> the marketplace.
>
> Beginning in the mid 1980’s a few judicial decisions, with no public or
> policy deliberation whatsoever, opened the floodgates to an exponential
> expansion in the filing of patents covering new subject matter and
> technologies that were never anticipated in the industrial age during which
> the system evolved. Indeed, there is a growing consensus that the unchecked
> proliferation of intellectual property rights is perversely out of touch
> with, and downright inimical to, the collaborative, cumulative, and
> interdependent essence of innovation in the 21st century’s networked
> knowledge economy. As the global economy struggles to find a new equilibrium
> after the financial meltdown, it is indisputable that old business models
> are unsustainable—this applies equally, indeed, especially, to technology
> and biomedicine, where cycles of over-hype, under-deliver, bubble then bust,
> have failed to produce cures for desperate, disappointed, and now
> disillusioned patients, bold proclamations of a “War on Cancer,”
> notwithstanding.
>
> In the last ten years, a collection of burgeoning movements has begun the
> herculean task of overhauling the outmoded institutions and worldviews that
> make up our global scientific governance system. Proponents of the Access to
> Knowledge movement (A2K) have united around the principle that data and
> knowledge are “anti-rivalrous,” the value of information increases as it
> spreads. Open Access Journals have demonstrated a new path for publishing
> that utilizes the power of the internet to instantly distribute ideas
> instead of imposing artificial scarcity to prop up old business models.
> “Health 2.0” entrepreneurs are seeking to apply the lessons of e-commerce to
> empower patients. However, these different efforts are each working on a
> piece of a problem without a view of the whole. It is not sufficient or
> realistic to tweak one component of the innovation system (eg, patent
> policy) and assume the others stay static. Instead, dynamic, interactive,
> nonlinear change is unfolding. The Open Science Summit is the first and only
> event to consider what happens throughout the entire innovation chain as
> reform in one area influences the prospects in others. In the best case
> scenario, a virtuous circle of mutually reinforcing shifts toward
> transparency and collaboration could unleash hitherto untapped reserves of
> human ingenuity.
>
> Imagine a vastly accelerated research, development, and commercialization
> cycle using an entire Open Innovation process from start to finish. In both
> commercial and academic labs, scientists would log results using Open
> Protocols such as Open Wetware. In the next stage, scientists submit to Open
> Access journals—but the process of peer review would be ongoing as “real
> time publication” allowed researchers to transform results into a
> publication along a continuum that ranged from initial reports to rough
> drafts to final submissions. A paper would never be “finished” as critique
> and response would be ongoing long after publication. New, sophisticated
> reputation “feedback” algorithms (like those powering Ebay or Amazon but
> optimized for science), supplant the old static journal model. This is
> already emerging to a limited extent with tentative forays into social
> networking software for science and post publication commentary experiments
> such as PLoS One. Young post-docs, instead of laboring under a stultifying
> grant system that rewards conservatism and incrementalism, pitting
> researchers against each other for an artificially limited number of spots,
> could simultaneously compete and collaborate with others around the globe,
> using platforms such as that being developed by India’s Open Source Drug
> Discovery Foundation. In the past, science has been said to advance one
> funeral at a time, but we can no longer afford to wait for generational
> replacement. Work done on open source projects would allow young researchers
> to build prestige, without regard to traditional hierarchy. Open Innovation
> prizes, offering cash and other rewards for solutions to problems ranging
> from cancer to aging, would spur progress and provide further incentives.
> New “micro-finance” platforms for research would enable patients and
> philanthropies to more efficiently direct funds to projects that slip
> through the cracks of the current system while also routing around
> “chokepoints” such as the NIH which can become a “single point of failure”
> in science funding (see Bush/stem cells).
>
> Next, research tools would be widely shared and disseminated, not hidden
> behind industrial secrecy or priced out of reach via an exclusive license.
> Platform “enabling technologies” in some of the world’s most important
> fields would be maintained as a “protected commons.” Stem cell lines or
> vectors to be used in gene therapy are prime examples of technologies where
> collective innovation to create an “Open Standard” would clearly benefit all
> interested parties, especially patients desperately awaiting cures. The
> widespread penetration of these “upstream” technologies would utterly
> transform the landscape of the biotechnology industry, disrupting
> concentrations of power that have accumulated over the past few decades and
> allowing entire ecologies of enterprise to spring up, colonizing a
> “long-tail” of niches that multi-nationals neglect in the pursuit of only
> the highest margin returns. Once standard, non-proprietary biotech packages
> are available, in principle, launching a biotech startup could come to more
> closely resemble the process of starting an IT company to make web apps
> today.
>
> In this revitalized context, as technologies approached commercialization
> stage, a variety of business models would be available using non-exclusive
> licensing and Open Source inspired agreements where appropriate, or allowing
> royalty free use for “neglected” diseases, crops, etc. Whatever model a
> particular company pursued would depend on its particular sector of the life
> sciences (diagnostics, vaccines, drug discovery, plant breeding, etc)… the
> point is that there are a huge range of alternative organizational models
> that have remained unexplored.
>
> Finally, regulatory reform would create transparency in clinical trials,
> shifting the funding model to prevent conflicts of interest and ensuring the
> data was publicly available for all to see. Profits would not come at the
> expense of patients.
>
> Now look at reality. Without massive coordinated effort we shall surely
> fail to achieve a *Free and Open Science and Technology Paradigm. *The
> vision sketched here needs to come about within the next decade if humanity
> is to make any progress against our interrelated great challenges—Energy,
> Climate, Health, Food Security, and Poverty. By 2020 there must be a
> distributed, global network of institutions participating in the governance
> of Science and Technology. I hope you share our excitement for this unique
> instant in history when it is finally possible for mankind, a species
> distinguished and defined by its capacity to use tools, to unleash the
> unlimited problem solving powers of the tool of tools, science.
>
>
>

-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100603/be3ef9be/attachment.html>