Open science and open education

A scientist must know and be able to many things from which it is impossible to read in books. How can, for example, learn how to conduct experimental research? In the literature you can read about the specifics of an experiment as a method of cognition, about its main stages, etc., but it is almost impossible to read about the specifics of using an experiment to solve specific cognitive problems. Such moments make up the so-called “personal knowledge” (M. Polani), which in most cases cannot be expressed at all in words and is learned by scientists only in the process of joint work.
One of the brightest tendencies in the development of the modern methodology of science is an interest in revealing as much as the general, as much as in the reconstruction of the unique. Widespread work, which describes in detail - step by step - the process of a scientific discovery. Of course, such books are very useful for scientists: they allow you to restore the context in which the discovery was made and help to better understand the nature of scientific research.
Thanks to the Internet, scientists have new opportunities for sharing knowledge and experience. The most progressive representatives of the scientific community began to reflect on the possibility of efficiently using the latest forms of Internet communication in research. One of these scientists was the American chemist Jean-Claude Bradley, known as the author of the concept of "open science" (Open Notebook Science).



What is open science?

The idea of ​​“open science” is extremely simple and consists of maximum transparency: every step of the scientist is reflected in open and accessible Internet sources (usually in special scientific blogs). All published information is open for further use: on its basis, other authors can write their own articles, it can be double-checked and adjusted, etc. Recently, many advocates of "open science" (including its founder Jean-Claude Bradley) prefer wiki format: it allows you to better display which research procedures were carried out at specific intervals.
There are similarities with the ideology of developing open source software (adherents of "open science" note that the philosophy of OpenSource Software had the most direct impact on them).

Why is all this necessary?

The following arguments can be made in favor of “open science”:

• openness will allow scientists to quickly receive feedback from the audience, respond to comments and correct errors;
• transparency will also significantly increase the level of public expertise (environmental, economic, ethical) of scientific projects;
• thanks to openness, the productivity of scientific work will increase: the number of duplicating studies will significantly decrease; in addition, obtaining real-time information on the progress of colleagues' research will help scientists avoid many mistakes; publishing detailed information on the progress of scientific research will help to establish productive scientific contacts (including between representatives of different disciplines), as well as a fruitful exchange of experience;
  transparency will also contribute to a better understanding between scientists and representatives of other fields of activity (for example, business); transparency will also contribute to the development of new approaches to many problems of philosophy and methodology of science;
  
  Arguments against "open science"
  
  With all its advantages, complete openness in science can give rise to many complex problems, in particular:
  
  
  • the desire for data transparency in many cases runs counter to existing copyright and patent law;
  • the publication of all information on the progress of the research process is not a panacea against fraud;
  • the requirement of maximum transparency of the research process entails the requirement of maximum scientific honesty: it is no secret that the same blogs are often used by scientists to publicize their successes, and writing about failures "live" is much more difficult.
  
  
  Who is doing this?
  
  Most theorists and practitioners of "open science" are natural scientists. The list of blogs cited on the English Wikipedia consists solely of resources sponsored by chemists and biologists. Humanities practicing Open Notebook Science are unknown to us. However, interesting initiatives in the field of cultural sciences and society, of course, are available. As a successful project, we can cite the dictionary of the Martinique Creole language by Rafael Confian , which was created in the open mode: the author laid out the dictionary entries in the public domain , site visitors downloaded them and sent their own corrections and additions. Soon the dictionary was published as a book.
  The insignificant activity of the humanities in the open science movement is understandable. In the natural sciences, the personality factor is minimized: the scientist is not so much creating his own product as fixing the laws of the world that exist independently of our desires, values, attitudes, etc. In the humanities, the process of cognition is in many cases closer to artistic creation than to an impartial discovery of the laws of nature. Naturally, the placement of personal creativity products in the public domain is perceived by many as painful. (By the way, it is understandable why among the humanities, open network projects are primarily carried out by linguists: they only record the current state of the language without introducing anything from themselves, and this is their work akin to what natural scientists do).
  However, the situation is changing: with the development of digital technologies, the OpenSource ideology also influences art. It can be assumed that the penetration of these influences into the field of the humanities is only a matter of time.
  
  The ideology of “open science” and education
  
  What can “open science” give to the modern education system? Some of its ideas and principles may well be introduced into the practice of training students and graduate students. Possible lines of work in this direction can be represented as follows:
  
  
  • It is no secret that most of the so-called student science is done just for show. To be honest, the same thing can be said about graduate, "dissertation" science. There are very, very few cases of real introduction of students' scientific achievements into practice. Student and post-graduate research groups could well support their own blogs and wikis. What are the benefits of such a practice? First of all, it is establishing contacts with other members of the scientific community. With the help of Internet research sites, graduate students and supervisors could easily find each other. In addition, open research resources may be of interest to employers as well as investors and business angels. (Examples of financing and monetization of open projects are available). Openness could significantly improve the quality of preparation for student conferences and seminars. Imagine this situation: all conference participants post abstracts in a special blog, comment on each other's texts, participate in discussions ... Such a practice will allow speakers to correct the texts of their speeches, and their opponents to think through and clarify their own position and arguments in its defense.
    
    In some cases, conducting an open scientific project could be an alternative to the traditional practice of writing term papers. It's no secret that the level of writing culture among modern students has fallen significantly. Often term papers (and graduation theses) are compiled from Internet sources, and students do not even care about what to bring pieces from different sources to a single style. Openness could contribute to the production of unique texts.