Open-source software development is gaining considerable momentum. With open-sourcing, software developers around the world collaborate to create very complex software, such as a version of the Unix operating system called Linux, or Web-server software Apache, using the Internet and a set of operating rules and regulations.
The code developed is overseen by a small group of experts to assure compliance with standards and to track the various modifications of the code. But anyone is free not only to use the software but to get access to the source code. By contrast, Microsoft not only charges for Windows, but it guards the software code for its operating system the same way Coke guards the formula for Coca-Cola: TOP SECRET.
In open sourcing, if you download the software, you can use it as long as you don't copyright any modifications. In fact, any modifications you make go back to the open-source Web site for upgrade and/or distribution to all users for free. One might assume that open-source development would create a free-for-all, but with the large number of highly competent people working around the world, nonsense changes to the code get ferreted out with lightning speed.
The Internet has enabled literally thousands of expert programmers to collaborate in building very sophisticated software. The movement is not new. In the 1970s, for example, researchers at Bell Labs developed Unix, making much of the code freely available to users. Today, many people who surf the Web are actually using one or more open-source programs such as Linux. Most large Web servers use a program called Apache. IBM, Google and Yahoo employ both Linux operating systems as well as Apache.
After reading Tom Friedman's description of the open-source movement in his new book, The World is Flat, I began to wonder if the idea could apply to medical research. My musings were bolstered by a vignette in Friedman's book about Wikipedia, an online, open-source encyclopedia that gets more hits than the Encyclopedia Britannica. Thousands of people generate content for Wikipedia and thousands more edit that content online. You might think that in this situation, creationists would trash the chapter on evolution, for example, but in fact, the weight of edits removes inaccurate material quickly.
If people can write encyclopedias in the same manner as Linux and Apache, why can't researchers collaborate by making all of their experimental data freely available on the Internet as soon as an experiment is completed? This instantly available data could rapidly increase the pace of discovery in biomedical science. Of course, this may not be so good for scientists who are looking for recognition—for promotion, for authorship of papers, for advantage in renewing grants, getting patents, royalties or consulting fees.
One might have thought that software developers would have been reluctant open-source participants for the same reasons. But lots of them do participate. They do it for the challenge of being at the very cutting edge of their field.
Now, maybe open-source research is a really crazy idea—after all, I've been accused of harboring crackpot ideas before. Or maybe it is already happening, in which case I'll get a barrage of e-mails chastising me for being out of touch with science. But if not, I hope you will give some thought to developing open-source consortia for your research area and engage your colleagues around the world in participating.
Open-source software development is gaining considerable momentum. With open-sourcing, software developers around the world collaborate to create very complex software, such as a version of the Unix operating system called Linux, or Web-server software Apache, using the Internet and a set of operating rules and regulations.
The code developed is overseen by a small group of experts to assure compliance with standards and to track the various modifications of the code. But anyone is free not only to use the software but to get access to the source code. By contrast, Microsoft not only charges for Windows, but it guards the software code for its operating system the same way Coke guards the formula for Coca-Cola: TOP SECRET.
In open sourcing, if you download the software, you can use it as long as you don't copyright any modifications. In fact, any modifications you make go back to the open-source Web site for upgrade and/or distribution to all users for free. One might assume that open-source development would create a free-for-all, but with the large number of highly competent people working around the world, nonsense changes to the code get ferreted out with lightning speed.
The Internet has enabled literally thousands of expert programmers to collaborate in building very sophisticated software. The movement is not new. In the 1970s, for example, researchers at Bell Labs developed Unix, making much of the code freely available to users. Today, many people who surf the Web are actually using one or more open-source programs such as Linux. Most large Web servers use a program called Apache. IBM, Google and Yahoo employ both Linux operating systems as well as Apache.
After reading Tom Friedman's description of the open-source movement in his new book, The World is Flat, I began to wonder if the idea could apply to medical research. My musings were bolstered by a vignette in Friedman's book about Wikipedia, an online, open-source encyclopedia that gets more hits than the Encyclopedia Britannica. Thousands of people generate content for Wikipedia and thousands more edit that content online. You might think that in this situation, creationists would trash the chapter on evolution, for example, but in fact, the weight of edits removes inaccurate material quickly.
If people can write encyclopedias in the same manner as Linux and Apache, why can't researchers collaborate by making all of their experimental data freely available on the Internet as soon as an experiment is completed? This instantly available data could rapidly increase the pace of discovery in biomedical science. Of course, this may not be so good for scientists who are looking for recognition—for promotion, for authorship of papers, for advantage in renewing grants, getting patents, royalties or consulting fees.
One might have thought that software developers would have been reluctant open-source participants for the same reasons. But lots of them do participate. They do it for the challenge of being at the very cutting edge of their field.
Now, maybe open-source research is a really crazy idea—after all, I've been accused of harboring crackpot ideas before. Or maybe it is already happening, in which case I'll get a barrage of e-mails chastising me for being out of touch with science. But if not, I hope you will give some thought to developing open-source consortia for your research area and engage your colleagues around the world in participating.
Facebook
Twitter
Sharecare
Blogs
YouTube
RSS
Podcasts
