ChiefNode

How open does science need to be to be validated?

I often argue that early stage technology, and early stage science, needs to be validated. I am simply echoing the scientific method. What is unique about the approach I advance is that I believe technology transfer and adoption of new approaches is contingent on this validation -- and thus publication is good. One more traditional view is that publication kills interest, when I think it is the opposite. Slashdot is having a debate about a new climate tool -- and whether or not it can be trusted because it was not released "open source". It's an interesting debate, as I usually would not agree that validation requires open source. I often encourage researchers to share more broadly and freely with colleagues who can assist in the validation process. . .but this debate raises a good question of how free should it be? Who has a role in the validation process -- and who gets to decide?

posted by Dana Bostrom @ 09:31