Review of Open Science Summit 2010, #OSS2010

I have been attending Open Science Summit 2010 at Berkeley, CA and although not quite finished yet I feel like I can give an overall review of what I thought of the conference. You can check out my individual comments during the conference on Twitter.

I would like to state that in general I am grateful and respect the work that Joseph Jackson and the organizing committee conducted to make this open science conference a reality. It is a tremendous amount of effort and the following is only meant as a constructive criticism for possible open science summit conferences in the future.

Pros

• Bringing together a very intelligent diverse group of speakers. Good mix of policy makers, developers, traditional scientists, biotech, young and old, etc.
  
• Great use of technology. Providing a live video stream of conferences is an idea that I wish more conferences implemented. Also, using backchan.nl is a nice additional add-on that couples well with the live video stream.
• Willingness to try to adapt (as much as possible) to conference attendees comments via twitter, back channel, etc.

Cons

• No scheduled breaks. Breaks are needed for numerous practical reasons: people need bathroom breaks, time to get some fresh air, and time for talks to get back on schedule. Even more importantly, it allows people to mingle. People travel to conferences so that they can get a chance to connect with people face to face (otherwise they would just watch the online feed).
  
• No time for Q & A. Questions immediately after speakers not only is informative, but gives a temporary "mind break" for the audience. It also gives time for IT to get the next presentation queued. Note: this did tend to improve as the conference proceeded.
  
• Too many speakers. Having 25 speakers in a single day (without parallel sessions) is just too much information for people to take in and sit through.

Additional lessons learned

• A no slide presentation is not a guarantee that it will be a good one.
• Videos do not always make a presentation better.
• Having 2 or more speakers from the same organization or having the exact same opinion is not really beneficial.

Comments from FriendFeed

An interview with the creator of BioTorrents

Who better to interview the creator of BioTorrents than the creator himself? :)

Interviewer: So Morgan, your article entitled “BioTorrents: A File Sharing Service for Scientific Data” was published today in PLoS One. BioTorrents uses the popular peer-to-peer file sharing protocol, BitTorrent, to allow scientists to rapidly share their results, datasets, and software. Where did this idea come from?

Morgan: Well about 6 months ago I was downloading some genome files from NCBI's FTP site and was watching the download speed hover between 50-100Kb/s and I said to myself (much like this interview) I wish could download these with BitTorrent. I have used BitTorrent for downloading other non-scientific data (lets not discuss what they may be) and I know it is a much faster and more reliable way for getting large files. A few minutes later I posted to Twitter asking if anyone had thought about setting up a BitTorrent tracker for scientific data and the response was over-whelming (well only 1 response, but I could feel it had a larger impact). About a week later, I brought up the idea again over coffee with some members of my lab and more importantly my post-doc supervisor Dr. Jonathan Eisen. He thought it was a good idea and well worth pursuing, which was all I needed to push aside all my other "real" research and focus on this much more "fun" project.

Interviewer: Thanks for that long-winded response. Maybe you could comment more briefly on the benefits of using BioTorrents/BitTorrent for sharing scientific data.

Morgan: I think it is explained fairly well in the manuscript and in my previous blog post, but to reiterate the major benefits are:
1) Faster, more reliable, and better controlled downloading of data that scales well for very large files.
2) Instant "publishing" of data, results, and software.
3) Very easy for anyone to share their data. No dedicated web server needed.

Interviewer: Who should consider sharing data on BioTorrents?

Morgan: Everyone that has something to share. Large institutions can benefit from reduced bandwidth requirements, while individual users can benefit from the simplicity of sharing with BitTorrent technology. Personally, I really like the idea of open data and the idea of sharing results before publication. How many times has someone done an all vs all blast of microbial genomes? In theory this can be done once, and that person can be recognized (referenced, co-authored, etc.) when other researchers use that data.

Interviewer: Are there any challenges/limitations to using BitTorrent with scientific data?

Morgan: BitTorrent excels at transferring very large popular datasets. Therefore, if only one person is "seeding" a file and only one person is downloading the file most of the advantage to using BitTorrent is lost. However, even in this worst case scenario, the transfer speed would be roughly equivalent to using traditional file transfer methods such as FTP/HTTP and BitTorrent still provides the benefit of error checking and ease of data transfer control (pause, resume, etc.). Another possible problem is that some institutions often try to limit BitTorrent traffic since it is often considered illegal non-work related network traffic. However, I would encourage users at these institutions to explain to their network administrator that many times BitTorrent traffic is legitimate and shouldn't be blocked.

Interviewer: Why publish in PLoS One?

Morgan: I have been a big fan of the PLoS One journal and ever since I blogged about it last year "Is PLOS One the future of scientific publishing?", I have been wanting to submit a paper there. Also, considering that BioTorrents is aimed at improving open access to data in all fields of science, PLoS One seemed like the most obvious journal choice for our manuscript.


Langille, M., & Eisen, J. (2010). BioTorrents: A File Sharing Service for Scientific Data PLoS ONE, 5 (4) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010071

BioTorrents - a file sharing resource for scientists

Let me ask you a question. If you just wrote a new computer program or produced a large dataset, and you wanted to openly share it with the research community, how would you do that?

Image via Wikipedia

My answer to that question is BioTorrents!

This has been a side project that I have been working on lately and considering this is the first international Open Access Week I thought I should finally announce it.

BioTorrents is a website that allows open access sharing of scientific data. It uses the popular BitTorrent peer-to-peer file sharing technology to allow rapid file transferring.

So what is the advantage of using BioTorrents?

1. Faster file transfer


• Have you tried to download the entire RefSeq or GEO datasets from NCBI recently? How about all the metagenomic data from CAMERA? Datasets continue to increase in size and downloading speed can be improved by allowing multiple computers/institutions to share their bandwidth.




2. More reliable file transfer


• BitTorrent technology has file checking built-in, so that you don't have to worry about corrupt downloads.


• Decentralization of the data ensures that if one server is disabled, that the data is still available from another user.




3. A central repository for software and datasets




• Rapid and open sharing of scientific findings continues to push for changes in traditional publication methods and has resulted in an increase in the use of pre-print archives, blogs, etc. However, sharing just datasets and software without a manuscript as an index is not as easy. BioTorrents allows anyone to share their data without a restriction on size (since the files are not actually hosted or transferred by BioTorrents).


• Titles and descriptions of all data on BioTorrents can be browsed by category or searched for keywords (tag cloud coming soon).


• As long as there is at least one user sharing the data it will always be available on BioTorrents. Those pieces of software or datasets that are not popular and not hosted by a user will quietly die (removed from Biotorrents after 2 weeks).

I am continuing to update BioTorrents, so if you have any suggestions or comments please let me know.

Other Tags:Website Hosting, Inventory Software

Retracting papers

A correspondence article in EMBO Reports discusses how many scientific papers should be retracted. Not surprisingly it found that high impact journals had significantly more retractions compared to low-impact journals. However, they conclude that this is due to the increased readership of the high impact journals and not on the overall quality of the papers.

Open access and internet technology get a pat on the back by the authors when they summarize,

"...the positive relationship between visibility of research and post-publication scrutiny suggests that the technical and sociological progress in information dissemination—the internet, omnipresent electronic publishing and the open access initiative—inadvertently improves the self-correction of science by making scientific publications more visible and accessible".

Indeed, as I am getting ready to submit my first, first author paper, my greatest concern is not that someone will disagree with my findings, but rather that no one will.