
Distribution of scientific results should be in the hands of the scientist - breck
https://experiment.com/public/WFHXKQ
======
rgejman
We have systems like the ones that the author desires (LabGuru, other
electronic lab notebooks).

However, I don't think the author's premise is well founded. Every scientist
dreams of publishing a beautiful, fully formed scientific discovery that
emerges like Athena, immediately rocking their field and changing the destiny
of mankind.

Most science is nothing like that. Most scientific results are comprised of
unclear results in a specific model system that may have only speculative
relevance to the real world (or to problems that people care about).
Presentation, and public consideration and public discussion helps to refine
models and cross-pollinate ideas that can lead to major discoveries. Little is
gained by keeping data absolutely secret until a scientist is ready to
publish.

~~~
afpx
Is that what typically motivates a scientist today? Is there any room these
days for the Darwin-style scientist: someone who just has curiosity, lots of
patience and care for recording things, and lots of stamina to keep thinking
and testing? That's the kind of scientist I'd want to be. That is, I'm pretty
sure Darwin wasn't motivated to become famous. He was just Darwin.

~~~
cossatot
Darwin was independently wealthy and had no need to work, like many of the
19th century luminaries of science.

No one will pay you to take your sweet time for several decades and publish if
and when you are ready to revolutionize a field. You have to get enough done
on a short timescale (a few years for a project that produces a handful of
papers is fine) for funded work. Most of us also do have our unfunded pet
projects that simmer on the back burner for longer, but these don't get
anything like full time effort.

And this is mostly as it should be. You write software with short functions
and tests, commit by commit, and release and revise episodically. Releasing
one enormous, monolithic product after working in secret for 20 years produces
science as awful as it does software, for the same reasons.

------
reposefulcats
What an annoying piece of cock rot.

The author attempts to establish a false dichotomy between Scientists
(author's capitalization) telling the Truth (implied capitalization) in their
own precious snowflake time, versus the Truth (implied capitalization) never
ever ever ever coming to light.

No argument is advanced to support the idea that scientists possessing
snowflake secrecy increases epistemological veracity. In addition the
narrative reeks of the worst form of fetishism of the scientific milieux.

The worst Hacker News link in years? It certainly pushed my buttons. Standards
people!

~~~
the6threplicant
If you replace scientists with coders then what you're saying is that
programmers should allow people to see your code at __any __time, instead of
allowing them to release the code when they see fit.

Since she states:

The first step is we need to upload all existing scientific research content
and make that digital content accessible to anyone anywhere with the internet.
Google is doing that. I admire sci-hub's efforts in this space. Sci-hub's team
has done what I am too afraid to do myself.

The second step is we need to record all new information generated by today's
scientists digitally.

~~~
zimablue
Except code and science are completely different and in the context of the
reasons why you'd want to force publishing, there's almost no link.

Coders aren't trying to prove truths about the world (generally), there is no
logical relation between you not open sourcing your half finished MySpace
clone and people sitting on negative results paid for with public funds.

It's such an obvious false equivalency that it's hard to even explain. It's
like we're having a conversation about design of space suits for astronauts
and you interject that it would be unfair to expect coders to wear space
suits.

------
mikedilger
I think some scientists at NCSA were working on a publication mechanism back
in 1993... NCSA mosaic, as I recall.

~~~
jstanley
And now almost everything _except_ scientific publishing has embraced the web!

------
hannob
Seems like the perfect recipe for publication bias. Give scientists the
freedom to decide when they publish, so if they don't like the result they can
just publish "never".

In other words: If you want unreproducible crap science to continue just go
ahead.

------
AstralStorm
No, it shouldn't. Instead we need a set of big simple to use open databases.
you do not have to publish it immediately, but when it is done. And at least
register a trial even if no paper is published.

Otherwise as practice shows scientists do not publish their raw data at all.
Or worse, it ends up behind paywalls.

By the way author says the same as far as I can read and the title is wrong.

------
doggydogs94
Unfortunately, somebody else is paying for the science. And the person paying
the bill makes all of these types of decisions.

------
aurelien
just like this link which is unreadable (on text webbrowser) you mean that
knowledge should be for some people, not for all.

