![[FSF
Associate Member]](http://www.modspil.dk/images/fsfMembergetButton.png){kind=small}
Videnskabelig forskning og vidensudveksling som model for Open Source-udvikling
Morten Nielsen skrev for et stykke tid siden på midtimod.dk, om hvordan principperne fra Open Source-softwareudvikling kunne genbruges som videnskabelig udviklingsmetode:
Broadcast search går i al sin enkelthed ud på, at man offentliggør en problemstilling og dermed giver andre mulighed for at byde ind med løsningsmodeller. Og her er analogien til open source udvikling naturligvis slående.Før vi nu falder helt i svime over, at Open Source-principper nu også kan bruges inden for de videnskabelige discipliner, kunne man spørge sig selv, om ikke det netop er at gå over åen efter vand, måske endda, om det ikke er at hype Open Sourcen for meget.
Modellen har vist sig at være ganske effektiv, i og med at der faktisk er en del eksempler på problemstillinger som man internt i et firma havde opgivet at finde en bærbar løsning på. Efter en broadcast search er løsningen kommet udefra på rekordtid. Og ovenikøbet på en måde der har overrasket både de involverede forskere og også Lakhanis team."I've done interviews with scientists who participated by posting problems for broadcast, and most of these scientists were highly skeptical about this method because they considered themselves to be at the top of their discipline. However, they had never thought about the possibility of scientists in other disciplines looking at their problem, reconceptualizing it, and coming up with a solution that could be off-the-shelf. So when they actually see solutions from this type of method, they're blown away."
For spørgsmålet er, som russeren Nikolai Bezroukov spørger i en lang, kritisk artikel om Open Source-fænomenet, om ikke det snarere er sådan, at Open Source-bevægelsen langt fra at være et Columbus-æg minder om dét almindelige videnskabelige arbejde, som den i sidste ende også udspringer af:
Jamen, er det da ikke rigtigt, som Morten siger, at dén videnskabelige verden, som burde være åben og kommunikerende, i virkeligheden kan blive lukket på grund af patenter og økonomiske interesser, at "den reelt eksisterende økonomiske verdensorden i sidste ende er en hæmsko for den videnskabelige udvikling"?"Cathedral and Bazaar" series of papers (and especially Eric S. Raymond's comments on the so-called Halloween documents) has some implicit postulates (here we use the term "postulate" to mean an underlying basic assumption like in Euclid geometry) that present "open source" as a magic solution:
- Messianic overtones:
Open source is a progressive phenomenon (bright future of mankind) with no problems.
Partially true as open source is an Internet-based phenomenon. But it is mostly untrue, because the OSS community is more like a regular scientific community than some OSS apologists would like to acknowledge. Like a scientific community, open source inherits some of the same and important problems including Lysenkoism. As for the novelty of distributing source code, this claim is without merit. IBM for many years distributed its mainframe software as open source.
Svaret er: TIL DELS.
Problemet opløser lidt sig selv ved, at den slags er mest udbredt i de mere teknologisk orienterede yderkanter og ikke i de forskellige videnskaber mainstream, hvor der ofte er meget få økonomiske interesser involveret.
Bezroukov citerer bl.a. Bryan Pfaffenberger i Linux Journal, der forsvarer Open Source-bevægelsen mod en beskyldning for økonomisk kommunisme (fordi viden, programmer og kildekode deles gratis):
Admittedly, if you listen to Richard Stallman long enough, you start hearing John Lennon's "Imagine". But I don't see any resemblance between open source and communism. Open source reminds me of the university, or more to the point, of the long-standing traditions of open knowledge-creating and sharing that are responsible for the impressive successes of Western science.Det nytter derfor ikke så meget at ville bygge videnskaben på Open Source-principper, eftersom Open Source-principperne i forvejen bygger på, om ikke altid videnskabelige principper, så dog efter arbejdsmetoden og især princippet om vidensdeling indenfor videnskaberne ...
When you become a scientist, you give up the quest for great worldly wealth. You get a decent wage, to be sure. But you don't capitalize on your discoveries - you give them away. You publish, and reveal all. You don't get a penny from the journals, either. In fact, some of them make the author pay the typesetting charges!
What's the payoff? There are probably as many motivations as there are scientists. Some are curious; they just can't stop thinking about why the edge of a waterfall curls, or why the Milky Way's arms form those big, elegant spirals. Others are big kids who can't wait to get into the lab for another rewarding day of exquisite, exploratory fun. Still others care very deeply about the value and meaning of science. In a recent series of lectures, physicist Freeman Dyson reveals the source of his commitment to science: a quest for ways that science and technology can contribute to social justice, the elimination of poverty, and the preservation of the Earth's environment.
I've never heard anyone call science communism. It has absolutely nothing to do with communism. In fact, communists don't like scientists very much. Scientists are too hard to control. They care too much about truth.
University scientists aren't the only people doing research, of course. For-profit corporations engage in research and development. But the consequences illustrate precisely whats at stake. Proprietary knowledge doesn't get disseminated unless doing so enhances the corporation's bottom line. That's understandable, but we need an alternative. In that most capitalist of all countries, the U.S., a bipartisan Congressional consensus supports public investment in university research and the creation of knowledge for everyone, including for-profit companies. This isn't communism; it's common sense.
Især er der intet nyt i ideen om "Broadcast Search": Videnskabens historie de sidste flere hundrede år er én lang række af offentliggjorte problemstillinger, som folk opfordres til at løse - fra Fermats sidste sætning over Hilberts program til matematikkens fuldendelse og til snart sagt alle videnskabelige artikler i vore dage, der villigt påpeger problemer i egne resultater og opfordrer til yderligere arbejde med de vanskeligste områder.
Et større problem end den nævnte økonomiske lukkethed er faktisk sådanne ting som nepotisme, personlige ambitioner og indspisthed - fænomener, som på ingen måde er ukendte i Open Source-verdenen, hvilket Bezroukov da også påpeger.
Med andre ord: Det kan altid blive bedre og gode ideer er altid gode at tage op, men det står dog ikke så galt inden for de naturvidenskabelige fag som de praktiseres i dag, at "broadcast search" eller Open Source-principper ligefrem er noget nyt eller uvant under solen.
Og heldigvis for det! Måtte det forblive sådan længe.