Scientific Peer Review and Source Code

[lawrocket 3]

I happened to read this today. I hope the link comes through from my blackberry.

[Url]http://www.google.com/gwt/x?source=m&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm%3Fid%3Dsecret-computer-code-threatens-science&wsi=1860d7d43e5ecc07&ei=GkCIT8ffNo7kxAL8kL3oCg&wsc=bf&ct=np&whp=3100[/url]

Basically, it's about some movements afoot about providing source code for the computers along with the research for the peer review process. As I read this, it seems to me (and I have been known to be wrong in the past - the way distant past) that replicated experiments on the computer by plugging in data using computer code that could not itself be vetted.

On the other hand, much has been made about this code being proprietary intellectual property. If I've got some research that uses a code that I myself created that can predict the stock market, I'd want to keep that code to myself to make money while having my work peer reviewed and get published.

This one is interesting to me. And there's a lot of being torn. On one hand, basic science should be open to all to see and review. Think of how limited the advancement of science would be if the telescope was only available to the person who invented it. And the computer code is like an instrument.

But then I also see that inventing a new instrument might have some profit motive. If I invented it I should have the right to it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

I happened to read this today. I hope the link comes through from my blackberry.

[Url]http://www.google.com/gwt/x?source=m&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm%3Fid%3Dsecret-computer-code-threatens-science&wsi=1860d7d43e5ecc07&ei=GkCIT8ffNo7kxAL8kL3oCg&wsc=bf&ct=np&whp=3100[/url]

Basically, it's about some movements afoot about providing source code for the computers along with the research for the peer review process. As I read this, it seems to me (and I have been known to be wrong in the past - the way distant past) that replicated experiments on the computer by plugging in data using computer code that could not itself be vetted.

On the other hand, much has been made about this code being proprietary intellectual property. If I've got some research that uses a code that I myself created that can predict the stock market, I'd want to keep that code to myself to make money while having my work peer reviewed and get published.

This one is interesting to me. And there's a lot of being torn. On one hand, basic science should be open to all to see and review. Think of how limited the advancement of science would be if the telescope was only available to the person who invented it. And the computer code is like an instrument.

But then I also see that inventing a new instrument might have some profit motive. If I invented it I should have the right to it.

That is a very valid point. But that is what trademark and patent protections are for. No subterfuge required.