4 ms·

One of the things that really soured me to working as a biologist was being told the data we collected would not be allowed to be made freely available, as we o

One of the things that really soured me to working as a biologist was being told the data we collected would not be allowed to be made freely available, as we originally proposed and was accepted in our grant proposal. Instead it would be locked away in a government database, available for a fee despite the data being collected using tax dollars, after we'd been working for over a year and a half on the project and had gone throught two funding cycles, on threat of our grant money being withdrawn. It was after we found an endangered species in an active mine site. It sucked. We'd built an open database easily accessible online, we used open street maps to display the data and had built a bunch of custom layers, we were also working with another group that wanted to add the data to their open database. In the end though none of that happened and the work that was put into making it was wasted and everything was given to the government and locked away.

harshreality 7y ago
What the hell? What mine and what endangered species? Why the hell is my government hiding this data?
- grawprog 7y ago
  A species of big-eared bats on the west coast known to hibernate in only a few locations. It's an open pit gravel quarry, not sure if it's your government, I'm in Canada. There are still people actively working on the project, or at least doing work that came from it, as far as I know, so I'd rather not be too detailed about it.
gHosts 7y ago
This is why we need initiatives like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data
prepend 7y ago
That sounds really frustrating. Fortunately many countries now have open data legislation. For example, in the US, since 2013 by executive order (M-13-13) and this year (Evidencemaking in Policy/Open Data Act), federally funded projects must eventually release their data to the public or include a plan explaining why national security or privacy reasons prevent it. I think it’s getting better.
- grawprog 7y ago
  This was during the reign of Prime minister Stephen Harper. Most funding towards the environment was cut during that time and scientists in Canada silenced fairly heavily. It was when all this: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/canadian-scientists-open-about-how-their-government-silenced-science-180961942/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/canadian-scien... was happening.
  - tonyarkles 7y ago
    Elsewhere in the thread I was half-way through typing up a comment asking whether this was during the Harper era, and then decided better of it. Glad to see I wasn't wrong. Horrifying the things that were happening with environmental science in that period. I mean, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear that it was still going on...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
atoav 7y ago
To me open data feels a lot like global warming: individual action is great and needed, but what we really need is to enshrine it in law and make it the default. Make public data usable, while protecting private data or like they say in Germany: Öffentliche Daten nützen, private Daten schützen. Same should be true for publicly funded code: should be open source and accessible by default and anything else should require special reasoning.
dTal 7y ago
Wait, so if research is government funded, said government can just... suppress results? That's horrifyingly corrupt. That right there is a scandal. In that position, I would be tempted to take a stand and release the data as originally planned, while blowing the lid off the whole corruption. Write in big letters on the website "THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THIS". If you're worried about your career... why? What is the point of your career as a scientist if you won't take a stand like that?
- OJFord 7y ago
  > If you're worried about your career... why? What is the point of your career as a scientist if you won't take a stand like that? Not GP, but 'earning a living' can be quite a compelling reason.
  - dTal 7y ago
    Scientist or capitalist, can't be both.
    - DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
      Sure, because only a capitalist would want to live somewhere or have something to eat /s
      - dTal 7y ago
        No, I'm simply saying that your primary motivation can either be science XOR money. If you are willing to suppress results for money, even money you need to eat, you can't call yourself a scientist anymore. Someone is paying you to do something, but it isn't science. To clarify, I'm not saying it makes you a bad person if you choose to eat. Just not a scientist. There's a reason we give professors tenure.
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    That's why US needs a job protection law. In Italy you can't be fired for your opinions. Never!

harshreality 7y ago

What the hell? What mine and what endangered species? Why the hell is my government hiding this data?

grawprog 7y ago
A species of big-eared bats on the west coast known to hibernate in only a few locations. It's an open pit gravel quarry, not sure if it's your government, I'm in Canada. There are still people actively working on the project, or at least doing work that came from it, as far as I know, so I'd rather not be too detailed about it.

gHosts 7y ago

This is why we need initiatives like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data

prepend 7y ago

That sounds really frustrating. Fortunately many countries now have open data legislation. For example, in the US, since 2013 by executive order (M-13-13) and this year (Evidencemaking in Policy/Open Data Act), federally funded projects must eventually release their data to the public or include a plan explaining why national security or privacy reasons prevent it. I think it’s getting better.

grawprog 7y ago
This was during the reign of Prime minister Stephen Harper. Most funding towards the environment was cut during that time and scientists in Canada silenced fairly heavily. It was when all this: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/canadian-scientists-open-about-how-their-government-silenced-science-180961942/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/canadian-scien... was happening.
- tonyarkles 7y ago
  Elsewhere in the thread I was half-way through typing up a comment asking whether this was during the Harper era, and then decided better of it. Glad to see I wasn't wrong. Horrifying the things that were happening with environmental science in that period. I mean, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear that it was still going on...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

atoav 7y ago

To me open data feels a lot like global warming: individual action is great and needed, but what we really need is to enshrine it in law and make it the default. Make public data usable, while protecting private data or like they say in Germany: Öffentliche Daten nützen, private Daten schützen. Same should be true for publicly funded code: should be open source and accessible by default and anything else should require special reasoning.

dTal 7y ago

Wait, so if research is government funded, said government can just... suppress results? That's horrifyingly corrupt. That right there is a scandal. In that position, I would be tempted to take a stand and release the data as originally planned, while blowing the lid off the whole corruption. Write in big letters on the website "THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THIS". If you're worried about your career... why? What is the point of your career as a scientist if you won't take a stand like that?

OJFord 7y ago
> If you're worried about your career... why? What is the point of your career as a scientist if you won't take a stand like that? Not GP, but 'earning a living' can be quite a compelling reason.
- dTal 7y ago
  Scientist or capitalist, can't be both.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
    Sure, because only a capitalist would want to live somewhere or have something to eat /s
    - dTal 7y ago
      No, I'm simply saying that your primary motivation can either be science XOR money. If you are willing to suppress results for money, even money you need to eat, you can't call yourself a scientist anymore. Someone is paying you to do something, but it isn't science. To clarify, I'm not saying it makes you a bad person if you choose to eat. Just not a scientist. There's a reason we give professors tenure.
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  That's why US needs a job protection law. In Italy you can't be fired for your opinions. Never!