Open Science can save the planet
Frontiers’ CEO, Kamila Markram, makes a case for why open science is the key to innovation, economic growth and solutions to a sustainable future.
Even though the world spends $2.3 Trillion on research to produce around 2 million research articles every year, still today, about 90% of our science results are locked away behind expensive paywalls, not widely available to the public, companies and even many researchers themselves. This produces the biggest bottleneck in today’s knowledge economy and society, stifling innovation and slowing down solutions to some of the biggest challenges humanity faces today: diseases and climate change. “Imagine how we could accelerate innovation, stimulate economic growth and all the solutions we need to live on a healthy and sustainable planet, if we were to open up our science fully and allow a free flow of scientific knowledge.” says Kamila Markram, a neuroscientist and the CEO of Frontiers, one of the largest Open Access science publishers in the world and a leader in the Open Science movement.
Excerpt: “Imagine how we could accelerate innovation, stimulate economic growth and all the solutions we need to live on a healthy and sustainable planet, if we were to open up our science fully and allow a free flow of scientific knowledge.” says Kamila Markram, a neuroscientist and the CEO of Frontiers, one of the largest Open Access science publishers in the world and a leader in the Open Science movement.”
—-
My comment: Talk is cheap. See: Understanding and accounting for relational context is critical for social neuroscience http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00127/full
I wrote: “New data on how genetic predispositions are epigenetically linked to phenotypically distinct neuroanatomy and behaviors is provided in the honeybee model. Across-species comparisons from insects to vertebrates clearly show that the epigenetic influence of food odors and pheromones continues throughout the life of organisms that collectively survive whereas individuals do not. These comparisons also attest to the relative salience of sensory input from the rearing environment. For example, when viewed from the consistency of animal models and conditioned behaviors, food odors are obviously more important to food selection than is our visual perception of food. Animal models affirm that food odor makes food either appealing or unappealing. Animal models reaffirm that it is the pheromones of other animals that makes them either appealing or unappealing.
Socioaffective neuroscience and psychology may progress more quickly by keeping these apparent facts in mind: Olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans (Keller et al., 2007; Kohl, 2007; Villarreal, 2009; Vosshall, Wong, & Axel, 2000).”
— Kohl, JV (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology 2012 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24693349
Open access publication in Frontiers has not led to any discussion of my model, despite the validation by George FR Ellis, of it’s importance in the context of integrating disparate disciplines.
—-
George F R Ellis “This is absolutely correct and forms part of the larger concept that top-down causation is a key factor not just in the way the brain works but in broader contexts in biology and even physics. This is explored here: http://rsfs.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/1.toc ” 25 Apr 2014 at 07:49am
Extremely revealing how ‘Open Science’ can make a difference to economics in research and save humanity from problems due to delayed and locked up researches in the ‘Closed Science’ approach. My kudos to the CEO of the Frontiers Kamila Markram.
Yes, open science is a One Health approach…
http://www.onehealthinitiative.com/
“One Health is the collaborative efforts of multiple disciplines working locally, nationally, and globally to attain optimal health for people, animals, plants and our environment.”
“One Health implementation will help protect and/or save untold millions of lives in our generation and for those to come.”
“Between animal and human medicine there are no dividing lines–nor should there be.” Rudolf Virchow, MD (the father of cellular pathology)
Bruce Kaplan, DVM
Excellent idea but we need to find a way to do this
Is science a good business for few or cultural heritage for many?
Science have be liberated; it has to be open; it has to be a community / common property, property of the whole human kind rather than being constrained by various means of restrictions. That way this is good one; thanks
I am agree on this one.
With some hope anything is possible!
I really like the Open Science movement. We should save the planet along with the human, animals and the nature.
Thanks!
The problem is that our results are measured at institutional level in Impact Factors of Closed Science Journals.
Do you really think than open access paper are useful for science progress? I am not sure. A lot of badly filtered information can be no information, at the end. Open acces publication is meanly a financial (publishers) and academic (authors) speculation that has been and is alwais more widely criticized. Not to talk of the email box clogging…
Regards.
Luciano D’Agostino
I agree with this.