COVID-19 information for PI Residents and Visitors
Scientific inquiry in the 21st century is beset with inefficiencies: a flood of papers not read, theories not tested, and experiments not repeated; a narrow research agenda driven by a handful of high-impact journals; a publishing industry that turns public funding into private profit; the exclusion of many scientists, particularly in developing countries, from cutting-edge research; and countless projects that are not completed for lack of skilled collaborators. These are all symptoms of a major communication bottleneck within the scientific community; the channels we rely on to share our ideas and findings—especially peer-reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings—are inadequate to the scale and scope of modern science.
The practice of open research—doing science on a public platform that facilitates collaboration, feedback, and the spread of ideas—addresses these concerns. Open-source science lowers barriers to entry, catalyzing new discoveries. It fosters the real-time sharing of ideas across the globe, favoring cooperative endeavor and complementarity of thought rather than wasteful competition. It reduces the influence of publishing monopolies, enabling a new credit attribution model based on contributions made rather than references accrued. Overall, it democratizes science while creating a new standard of prestige: quality of work, instead of quantity of output.
This workshop will bring together a diverse group of researchers, from fields as diverse as physics, biology, computer science, and sociology, committed to open-source science. Together, we will review the lessons learnt from various pioneering initiatives, such as the Polymath project and Data for Democracy. We will discuss the opportunity to build a new tool, similar to the software development platform GitHub, to enable online collaborative science. We will consider the challenges associated with the adoption of such a tool by our peers and discuss ways to overcome them. Finally, we will sketch a roadmap for the actual development of that tool.
Registration for this workshop is now closed.
- Luis Batalha, Fermat's Library - via teleconference
- Simon DeDeo, Carnegie Mellon University
- Nicolás Erdödy, Open Parallel Ltd.
- Benedikt Fecher, Alexander von Humboldt Institute
- Thomas Landrain, La Paillasse & Just One Giant Lab
- Andrew Mao, CTRL Labs
- Ivar Martin, Knowen
- Tobias Mistele, Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies
- Rosie Redfield, University of British Columbia
- Arfon Smith, Space Telescope Science Institute
- Agata Branczyk, Perimeter Institute
- Sylvain Carrozza, Perimeter Institute
- Simon DeDeo, Carnegie Mellon University
- Maite Dupuis, Perimeter Institute
- Nicolás Erdödy, Open Parallel Ltd.
- Terry Farrelly, Leibniz University Hannover
- Benedikt Fecher, Alexander von Humboldt Institute
- Adrian Franco Rubio, Perimeter Institute
- Marc Geiller, Perimeter Institute
- Markus Hauru, Perimeter Institute
- Ryszard Kostecki, University of Warsaw
- Thomas Landrain, La Paillasse & Just One Giant Lab
- Matheus Lobo, Federal University of Tocantins
- Niamh Maher, Perimeter Institute
- Andrew Mao, CTRL Labs
- Ivar Martin, Knowen
- Ashley Milsted, Perimeter Institute
- Tobias Mistele, Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies
- Sebastian Mizera, Perimeter Institute
- Moritz Munchmeyer, Perimeter Institute
- Rosaria Nakashima, Federal University of Tocantins
- Chiamaka Okoli Nwosu, Perimeter Institute
- Nestor Ortiz, Perimeter Institute
- Yuchen Pei, KTH Royal Institute of Technology
- Rosie Redfield, University of British Columbia
- Jess Riedel, Perimeter Institute
- Aldo Riello, Perimeter Institute
- Carlos Rodriguez Fernandez, Perimeter Institute
- Erik Schnetter, Perimeter Institute
- Mohamad Shalaby, Perimeter Institute
- Vasudev Shyam, Perimeter Institute
- Matteo Smerlak, Perimeter Institute
- Arfon Smith, Space Telescope Science Institute
- Sebastian Steinhaus, Perimeter Institute
- Bapu Vaitla, Harvard University
- Qiao Zhou, Perimeter Institute
Monday, March 26, 2018
Time |
Event |
Location |
8:30 – 9:00am |
Registration |
Reception |
9:00 – 9:15am |
Welcome and Opening Remarks |
Space Room |
9:15 – 10:00am |
Simon Dedeo, Carnegie Mellon University |
Space Room |
10:00-10:45am |
Benedikt Fecher, Alexander von Humboldt Institute |
Space Room |
10:45 – 11:15am |
Coffee Break |
Bistro – 1st Floor |
11:15 – 12:30pm |
Brainstorming – Why Open Research? |
Space Room |
12:30 – 2:00pm |
Lunch |
Bistro – 2nd Floor |
2:00 – 2:45pm |
Jess Riedel, Perimeter Institute & |
Space Room |
2:45 – 3:30pm |
Ivar Martin, Knowen |
Space Room |
3:30 – 5:00pm |
Brainstorming – Tools for Online Collaboration |
Space Room |
5:00-6:00pm |
Wine & Cheese Reception |
Reflecting Lounge |
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Time |
Event |
Location |
9:00 – 9:45am |
Rosie Redfield, University of British Columbia |
Space Room |
9:45-10:30am |
Arfon Smith, Space Telescope Science Institute |
Space Room |
10:30 – 11:00am |
Coffee Break |
Bistro – 1st Floor |
11:00 – 12:15pm |
Brainstorming – Open Research vs Credit Attribution |
Space Room |
12:15 – 2:00pm |
Lunch |
Bistro – 2nd Floor |
2:00 – 2:45pm |
Andrew Mao, CTRL Labs |
Space Room |
2:45-3:30pm |
Nicolás Erdödy, Open Parallel Ltd. |
Space Room |
3:30 – 4:00pm |
Coffee Break |
Bistro – 1st Floor |
4:00 – 5:15pm |
Brainstorming – The Path to Adoption |
Space Room |
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Time |
Event |
Location |
9:00 – 9:45am |
Thomas Landrain, La Paillasse & Just One Giant Lab |
Space Room |
9:45-10:30am |
Tobias Mistele, Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies |
Space Room |
10:30 – 11:00am |
Coffee Break |
Bistro – 1st Floor |
11:00 – 12:15pm |
Brainstorming – This Group's Future |
Space Room |
12:15 – 2:00pm |
Lunch |
Bistro – 2nd Floor |
2:00 – 3:30pm |
Colloquium |
Time Room |
3:30 – 4:00pm |
Coffee Break |
Bistro – 1st Floor |
4:00 – 4:45pm |
Panel Discussion |
Space Room |
4:45 – 5:30pm |
Jess Riedel, Perimeter Institute |
Space Room |
Simon DeDeo, Carnegie Mellon University
Data Mists, Blockchain Republics, and the Moon Shot
To do things together it is not enough to know. We must know what others know, and know that they know we know it, a phenomenon known as Common Knowledge. From the Royal Society to the Science and Nature super-journals, scientists have found ways—however flawed—to achieve it. I’ll introduce the concept of the Artifact, an abstraction that captures the essence of these institutions, and that may help us, in the 21st Century, to go beyond them. And I’ll propose, playfully, a few endeavors that may help us achieve it: Data Mists, Blockchain Republics, and the Moon Shot.
Nicolás Erdödy, Open Parallel Ltd.
Open is the New Black: Really?
Through the last 20-25 years “we won” many battles in the evolution of FLOSS into mainstream. No one can ignore today the role of open source in software, hardware, high-tech and even business development. However everything seems to be open today: Open Data, Open Innovation, Open Government, Open Research...what do we mean by that? Has “open” the same meaning in all of them? How reliable are the results from such openness? What about policies and science and technologies designed on top of them?
Benedikt Fecher, Alexander von Humboldt Institute
Like penguins on an ice floe: The scary business of adopting open science practices
In the talk I delineate a simple framework for open science and present empirical results on the adoption of open practices from my own research (+ others). The topics include data sharing, open access infrastructure, and replicability. I will show future perspectives for open science (including knowledge transfer and transdisciplinary research).
Ivar Martin, Knowen
Can science be wikified
Rosie Redfield, University of British Columbia
What’s not to like? Open science will fail unless it takes the costs seriously
The Open Science movement focuses on the broad benefits to the scientific enterprise, but its success will depend on the actions of individual scientists. Unless the short-term benefits to the researcher outweigh the costs, only the most altruistic will open up their research efforts to the world. Arguments based on hypothetical future benefits don’t carry much weight, and calls for better tools appear to be mainly driven by tool-designers, not potential users. I’ll start with two brief case histories (#arseniclife and Apple Academic Press), and then consider what the immediate costs and benefits are and how we might shift the balance between them.
Jess Riedel, Perimeter Institute & Luis Batakha, Fermat's Library
Collaborative Knowledge Ratchets and Fermat's Library
TBA
TBA
Open is the New Black: Really?
Through the last 20-25 years “we won” many battles in the evolution of FLOSS into mainstream. No one can ignore today the role of open source in software, hardware, high-tech and even business development. However everything seems to be open today: Open Data, Open Innovation, Open Government, Open Research...what do we mean by that? Has “open” the same meaning in all of them? How reliable are the results from such openness? What about policies and science and technologies designed on top of them?
TBA
TBA
What’s not to like? Open science will fail unless it takes the costs seriously
The Open Science movement focuses on the broad benefits to the scientific enterprise, but its success will depend on the actions of individual scientists. Unless the short-term benefits to the researcher outweigh the costs, only the most altruistic will open up their research efforts to the world. Arguments based on hypothetical future benefits don’t carry much weight, and calls for better tools appear to be mainly driven by tool-designers, not potential users.
Can science be wikified
Collaborative Knowledge Ratchets and Fermat's Library
Like penguins on an ice floe: The scary business of adopting open science practices
In the talk I delineate a simple framework for open science and present empirical results on the adoption of open practices from my own research (+ others). The topics include data sharing, open access infrastructure, and replicability. I will show future perspectives for open science (including knowledge transfer and transdisciplinary research).
Data Mists, Blockchain Republics, and the Moon Shot
To do things together it is not enough to know. We must know what others know, and know that they know we know it, a phenomenon known as Common Knowledge. From the Royal Society to the Science and Nature super-journals, scientists have found ways—however flawed—to achieve it. I’ll introduce the concept of the Artifact, an abstraction that captures the essence of these institutions, and that may help us, in the 21st Century, to go beyond them. And I’ll propose, playfully, a few endeavors that may help us achieve it: Data Mists, Blockchain Republics, and the Moon Shot.
Pages
Scientific Organizers:
- Marc Geiller, Perimeter Institute
- Ashley Milsted, Perimeter Institute
- Jess Riedel, Perimeter Institute
- Matteo Smerlak, Perimeter Institute
- Erik Schnetter, Perimeter Institute
- Bapu Vaitla, Harvard University