Initially talking about a 'Polymath' project, successful
Then about a quantum wiki, proposed at a conference. People liked the idea but hoped that others would do the work, make the contributions. So it went nowhere. Social networks for scientists usually fail too.
Why? Science is competitive, to get a job you gain much more by writing a paper (even a lousy one) than by contributing to a public project. The end product of the polymath project was conventional papers.
1990s, a successful collaborative genetics project. How did it overcome the reluctance to upload data for shared use. The Bermuda principles: human genetics data should be uploaded and publicly available. Solidified in policy, by NIH and Wellcome, to work on project had to agree to these principles.
But much genomic data is hoarded, also computer programs, description of projects. Open Science movement wants to change this. How to change science?
Galileo example: Kept discovery secret, but distributed in code (anagram) to ensure claim of priority. Later 18th and 19th century, struggle to make science public. (I think he's saying this was an open science revolution...)
Now have new tools. What can you do to help start the second open science revolution? Use the new tools. But be very generous in giving credit to others for sharing. Promote by conversations to change the culture of science.
Single most important thing we can do is raise public awareness of importance/value of openness. Talk it up all around you.
('Consciousness raising' - did it work for feminism?)
Macrocycles, flexibility and biological activity: A tortuous pairing
1 day ago in The Curious Wavefunction