One of the strong messages that came back from the workshop we held at the BioSysBio meeting was that protocols and standards of behaviour were something that people would appreciate having available. There are many potential issues that are raised by the idea of a ‘charter’ or ‘protocol’ for open science but these are definitely things that are worth talking about.

I am thinking about how to present the case for Open Science, Open Notebook Science, and Open Data at Science in the 21 ^st Century, the meeting being organised by Sabine Hossenfelder and Michael Nielsen at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

Perimeter Institute by hungryhungrypixels (Picture found by Zemanta). Sabine Hossenfelder and Michael Nielsen of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics are organising a conference called ‘Science in the 21st Century’ which was inspired in part by SciBarCamp.

Following on from my post there has been lots of discussion both in the comments to the post and also support and ideas on other blogs. I also had a good talk (I know, face to face, how archaic :) with Jeremy Frey about the idea. Here I want to collate a few of the comments and ideas. Jean-Claude makes a very good point in a comment on the original post. I believe it will be possible, with resources,Â

I’ve been mulling over this for a while, and seeing as I am home sick (can’t you tell from the rush of posts?) I’m going to give it a go. This definitely comes with a health warning as it goes way beyond what I know much about at any technical level. This is therefore handwaving of the highest order. But I haven’t come across anyone else floating the same ideas so I will have a shot at explaning my thoughts.

DUE TO SEVERE COMMENT SPAM ON THIS POST I HAVE CLOSED IT TO COMMENTS On February 28/29 we held a workshop on our Blog Based notebook system at the Cosener’s House in Abingdon, Oxfordshire.

One thing that we have been thinking about a bit recently is how best to link elements of a peer reviewed paper back to an Open Notebook. There are a number of issues that this raises, both technical and philosophical about how and why we might do this.

On Wednesday and Thursday this week I was lucky to be able to attend a conference on Electronic Laboratory Notebooks run by an organization called SMI. Lucky because the registration fee was £1500 and I got a free ticket. Clearly this was not a conference aimed at academics. This was a discussion of the capabilities and implications for Electronic Laboratory Notebooks used in industry, and primarily in big pharma.

Sometimes you read things that just make you angry. I’m not sure I can add much to this eloquent article written by Andrew Vickers in the New York Times (via Neil Saunders and the 23andme blog). Shirley Wu has recently written on the fears and issues of being scooped and whether this is field dependent or not.

There has been a bit of discussion recently about identifying and promoting ‘wins’ for Open Science and Open Notebook Science. I was particularly struck by a comment made by Hemai Parthasarathy at the ScienceBlogging Meeting that she wasn’t aware of any really good examples that illustrate the power of open approches.