4 ms·

I'd like to understand why organisations like the Gates Foundation / NIH aren't excited by this approach? I'm assuming they've rejected this, which would expla

I'd like to understand why organisations like the Gates Foundation / NIH aren't excited by this approach? I'm assuming they've rejected this, which would explain the need to crowdfinance the next part. If they haven't rejected it, why aren't they being approached for grants? Also, where's the science? Having something in the FAQ that states "We're awaiting publication in a peer-reviewed journal" is, to be blunt, pretty lame. Is the data and research open access? If not, why not?

gus_massa 13y ago
In some areas it’s usual to publish the preprints, for example in the arXiv: http://arxiv.org/ http://arxiv.org/ “Open access to 909,134 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics” In some other areas, the journals have more strictly policies, and don’t like preprints, reprints, free author pdf copies, ... I’d really like to see a peer-review article, even if that means waiting to see the research data. There is a lot of bullshit inside per-review articles, but there is even more bullshit outside per-review articles. A per-review is not a guaranty that the article is correct, but at least it guaranty that some expert in that area had read the article and had no found any major fault.
- Fomite 13y ago
  In a fair amount of Biology and Medicine, it's not at all common practice to place a pre-print in arXiv. It doesn't surprise me even a little that the folks here haven't done so.
ENGNR 13y ago
According to the article Microsoft Research contributed $1M in 2011 (not the Gates Foundation but related)
naveenspark 13y ago
We are pursuing all major funders we know of for funding for our work (including Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation etc.). The challenge is that it takes significant time to prepare grants apps, and go through the process. Some large funders such as EJAF only accept grant applications once a year. HIV/AIDS is an urgent challenge. Therefore we are crowd funding these dollars now to move our project forward immediately. In terms of the PRJ question, the bottom line is its a chicken and egg problem. Its harder to get published if you release all of the data prior to publication. Post publication, our goal is to make our project as open access as humanely possible. All of that being said, we do have more information about our work on our site: http://www.immunityproject.org http://www.immunityproject.org. If you have specific questions about our approach please feel free to ask them.
- rgejman 13y ago
  I'm confused as to why you would encourage anyone to donate money to your organization without providing any data. I'm also confused about why you care about publication in traditional scientific mediums. You are starting a company and it would be in your interest to release as much data as possible about your successes in an attempt to raise money. Not to mention, there are some journals that will publish pre-printed data. Here's a partial list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals_by_preprint_policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals_by_pr...) although take that list with a grain of salt because the pre-print policies may only really apply to math/physics publications.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    there was veeery recently a bio paper that got pushed to arXiv. I don't have the link, since I saw it float by on a facebook feed, but I will look for it.
- zvrba 13y ago
  > Its harder to get published if you release all of the data prior to publication. IF you succeed (and I hope you will).. just think how AWESOME would it be that the authors of one of the most significant achievements of the 21st century boicoted those greedy journals. You'll probably win a Nobel prize if you succeed, why care about a journal publication?!
  - vidarh 13y ago
    > You'll probably win a Nobel prize if you succeed, why care about a journal publication?! Presumably because getting published opens up large number of potential funding sources that would otherwise ignore them.
Fomite 13y ago
A very large amount of weight, at least in NIH grants of the size we'd be talking about, is preliminary data. One paper that's not even in press yet isn't going to set off any fireworks in a grant review committee, especially with funding as tight as it is right now.

gus_massa 13y ago

In some areas it’s usual to publish the preprints, for example in the arXiv: http://arxiv.org/ http://arxiv.org/ “Open access to 909,134 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics” In some other areas, the journals have more strictly policies, and don’t like preprints, reprints, free author pdf copies, ... I’d really like to see a peer-review article, even if that means waiting to see the research data. There is a lot of bullshit inside per-review articles, but there is even more bullshit outside per-review articles. A per-review is not a guaranty that the article is correct, but at least it guaranty that some expert in that area had read the article and had no found any major fault.

Fomite 13y ago
In a fair amount of Biology and Medicine, it's not at all common practice to place a pre-print in arXiv. It doesn't surprise me even a little that the folks here haven't done so.

ENGNR 13y ago

According to the article Microsoft Research contributed $1M in 2011 (not the Gates Foundation but related)

naveenspark 13y ago

We are pursuing all major funders we know of for funding for our work (including Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation etc.). The challenge is that it takes significant time to prepare grants apps, and go through the process. Some large funders such as EJAF only accept grant applications once a year. HIV/AIDS is an urgent challenge. Therefore we are crowd funding these dollars now to move our project forward immediately. In terms of the PRJ question, the bottom line is its a chicken and egg problem. Its harder to get published if you release all of the data prior to publication. Post publication, our goal is to make our project as open access as humanely possible. All of that being said, we do have more information about our work on our site: http://www.immunityproject.org http://www.immunityproject.org. If you have specific questions about our approach please feel free to ask them.

rgejman 13y ago
I'm confused as to why you would encourage anyone to donate money to your organization without providing any data. I'm also confused about why you care about publication in traditional scientific mediums. You are starting a company and it would be in your interest to release as much data as possible about your successes in an attempt to raise money. Not to mention, there are some journals that will publish pre-printed data. Here's a partial list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals_by_preprint_policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals_by_pr...) although take that list with a grain of salt because the pre-print policies may only really apply to math/physics publications.
- dnautics 13y ago
  there was veeery recently a bio paper that got pushed to arXiv. I don't have the link, since I saw it float by on a facebook feed, but I will look for it.
zvrba 13y ago
> Its harder to get published if you release all of the data prior to publication. IF you succeed (and I hope you will).. just think how AWESOME would it be that the authors of one of the most significant achievements of the 21st century boicoted those greedy journals. You'll probably win a Nobel prize if you succeed, why care about a journal publication?!
- vidarh 13y ago
  > You'll probably win a Nobel prize if you succeed, why care about a journal publication?! Presumably because getting published opens up large number of potential funding sources that would otherwise ignore them.

Fomite 13y ago

A very large amount of weight, at least in NIH grants of the size we'd be talking about, is preliminary data. One paper that's not even in press yet isn't going to set off any fireworks in a grant review committee, especially with funding as tight as it is right now.