Does Open Source Apply to Science?
Release early, release often- the mantra of open source softwares- can it be applied to Fundscience?
By Syam Anand
I want to first introduce the mantra of open source softwares to the small minority of those who may not be aware of it. “Release early and release often” summarizes the philosophy of people who work and support open source softwares. Open source softwares thrive on the committed efforts of groups of people who work from different parts of the world. They put their brains together for a common goal- constant improvement based on feedback. They are not part of any real organization. But they always evolve into an organization of sorts that is governed by operating principles that co-evolve with them keeping in tune with changing priorities. The good thing about evolution is, it tests and selects the fittest. Being more flexible thus makes them more adaptable as an organization.
From a strategic perspective open source softwares thrive on “real” feedback and “real” solutions. People who actually uses these softwares work on it and to improve it and keeps on improving it. First, they don’t wait to come up with packages such as version x or version y and then try to sell it in a form that cannot be tinkered with (similar to a biology kit whose information in “proprietary” and you don’t have access to it, even if you own the kit!). Second, they don’t set the intervals with which they come up with updates, beforehand. They do it on a regular basis. If a software has a bug, it is explained in the open for possible solutions. When a solution is found, it is notified to everyone. As a practicing scientist, it seems very similar to what we do everyday for every aspect of laboratory life, except for funding. We regularly do experiments, we regularly improvise and find better ways to ask questions and get answers. But when it comes to funding, we can do it three times a year for NIH and once a year for the foundations. Of course, we regularly work towards getting funded!
When you talk to any scientist (established or beginner) about funding avenues that are currently available, one constant complain you hear is that it takes a huge amount of time to get a proposal reviewed and funded. This is true for NIH (since I am a biologist, I would restrict myself to NIH) and foundations that fund research. By huge I mean, upto ONE WHOLE YEAR! Herculean efforts, planning and lots of luck seem to be a requirement to survive the transition periods. Consider the rate at which funding is granted nowadays- 10% of grants that require substantial amounts of preliminary evidence (which in turn takes money, time and manpower to generate!). This means if one has to rewrite and resubmit, which takes another year, a few lives and careers will be on the line and soon off the line. And it actually happens in real life. A glaring example is that of Dr. Prasher who did not win the nobel for GFP because he ran out of funds and had to give his GFP clone to two other scientists who went on to win this year’s nobel in chemistry. It seems he is driving a courtesy shuttle now! (read the blog by dgaddy in fundscience.org on GFP). This brings me to the point I wish to make- fund early and fund often is the way to go, if anyone wants to be different and make a difference in the way research is funded.
Fund early and fund often is easier said than done, as one has to consider the availability of funds, availability of reviewers and the time constraints this would place on the reviewers. Since the success of open source strategies depends on cooperation between individuals who are knowledgeable, building an interactive community and providing a forum for concurrent evaluation of proposals are the starting steps. The next step would be to remain flexible. Too many rigid rules for submission, evaluation and granting funds would make it look the same. Make it simple and flexible and let it evolve.
If there is a possibility of funding one project every month, I would rate that as more rewarding for supporting science ON TIME, rather than 12 grants at the end/beginning of every year. Fund early and fund often. If fundscience can adapt this mantra, it will address one low point of every funding agency that I know- TURNAROUND TIME. This is a niche that fundscience can evolve into and make its own habitat. How to achieve this objective is a matter of discussion, debate and planning. But this is one requirement that is yet to be a major focus for a scientific funding agency. One argument against this would be that competition is not going to be uniform in every month. My answer to that is that competition wont be uniform no matter how it is done, as scientists come up with fresh ideas regularly and there is no clear way to mark a genius from a dumbo other than wait and see how and what he/she does in a relatively long period of time. There is no point in holding a science Olympics to see who wins!
As a closing argument, I feel that if a scientific paper can be reviewed in two weeks time (accelerated papers take this long) and a suitability report for a journal (such as science/ nature) can be obtained overnight from their editorial boards, a short write-up (one-three pages) can be read and reviewed and put to vote within a month. Another fresh beginning would be to put the submitted proposals for a vote not just by the “experts” (for which there are other forums such as NIH and the innumerable foundations) but by everyone including Ph.D students, post-doctoral fellows, doctors, engineers and people who are curious and interested to participate. If you can vote for electing your president, you could vote on the science that you wish you fund directly too! The role of experts will be to moderate the discussion and voting in a fruitful and non-partisan manner.
As for which projects can be funded (since the public is directly involved, this is a concern for a lot of people), the institutional review board and research administration to which the scientist making the proposal is answerable will ensure that all rules and regulations are met with and research is conducted ethically and responsibly.
Syam Anand
Pittsburgh, USA.