3 ms·

Scientific 501(c)(3) Nonprofits are organized primarily to conduct scientific research in the public interest. Their research must benefit the general public, n

Scientific 501(c)(3) Nonprofits are organized primarily to conduct scientific research in the public interest. Their research must benefit the general public, not specific individuals or commercial enterprises. This aligns with the suggestion to commit to fully open data and fully open models.

kube-system 1y ago
Yeah, "their research" and "not specific individuals or commercial enterprises" both being key. IP baggage from others is inherently not theirs. And it's not like they're cutting dividend checks from sales of private models. Using scientific data that they can use to do science with but they can't share is 100% legit.
- contingencies 1y ago
  Not sure where this conclusion comes from. What is their research activity? Making data models. How is that in the public interest? IMHO it's very hard to argue that something is in the public interest if the public can't see it, hold it, analyze it, criticize it, and replicate it: particularly in the field of science where we have a replication crisis. If it's a black-box service, it's not science. If it's replicable and open, thus provable, it's science.
  - kube-system 1y ago
    I don't know that much about them, but it looks like they have 57 repositories on GitHub. Are they redirecting income to enrich specific people or commercial enterprises? I don't see any anyone claiming that they are. There is no requirement that a 501(c)(3) post everything publicly. I completely understand and agree that sharing science is a good thing... but it is also dumb to suggest that scientists must put their head in the sand and ignore data that just happens to be under copyright. And just because it is, doesn't mean that it can't be reviewed -- it means it can't be redistributed. I mean, for heavens sake, every science textbook I ever read in school was encumbered by copyright. That doesn't mean we should burn science text books or that the data in them is subject to some replication crisis. I think you're building a mountain out of a molehill here.
    - contingencies 1y ago
      A significant amount of international resource is flowing toward this project and the basic guarantees that the output (noting the process for its creation supersedes the significance of any individual artifact) will be available to the community are absent. In their place, we see hand-waving justifications. This is unacceptable. You may consider this a molehill, others do not. Science does not.
      - kube-system 1y ago
        I really don't think you do speak for all of science with the suggestion that scientists ignore copyrighted data. It is plainly routine for scientists to work with data that is encumbered by legal obligations beyond their control... because you can still use it to learn things and draw useful conclusions. While there is an opportunity to criticize this politically, it isn't scientists fault for having to follow the law as it stands.

kube-system 1y ago

Yeah, "their research" and "not specific individuals or commercial enterprises" both being key. IP baggage from others is inherently not theirs. And it's not like they're cutting dividend checks from sales of private models. Using scientific data that they can use to do science with but they can't share is 100% legit.

contingencies 1y ago
Not sure where this conclusion comes from. What is their research activity? Making data models. How is that in the public interest? IMHO it's very hard to argue that something is in the public interest if the public can't see it, hold it, analyze it, criticize it, and replicate it: particularly in the field of science where we have a replication crisis. If it's a black-box service, it's not science. If it's replicable and open, thus provable, it's science.
- kube-system 1y ago
  I don't know that much about them, but it looks like they have 57 repositories on GitHub. Are they redirecting income to enrich specific people or commercial enterprises? I don't see any anyone claiming that they are. There is no requirement that a 501(c)(3) post everything publicly. I completely understand and agree that sharing science is a good thing... but it is also dumb to suggest that scientists must put their head in the sand and ignore data that just happens to be under copyright. And just because it is, doesn't mean that it can't be reviewed -- it means it can't be redistributed. I mean, for heavens sake, every science textbook I ever read in school was encumbered by copyright. That doesn't mean we should burn science text books or that the data in them is subject to some replication crisis. I think you're building a mountain out of a molehill here.
  - contingencies 1y ago
    A significant amount of international resource is flowing toward this project and the basic guarantees that the output (noting the process for its creation supersedes the significance of any individual artifact) will be available to the community are absent. In their place, we see hand-waving justifications. This is unacceptable. You may consider this a molehill, others do not. Science does not.
    - kube-system 1y ago
      I really don't think you do speak for all of science with the suggestion that scientists ignore copyrighted data. It is plainly routine for scientists to work with data that is encumbered by legal obligations beyond their control... because you can still use it to learn things and draw useful conclusions. While there is an opportunity to criticize this politically, it isn't scientists fault for having to follow the law as it stands.