Re: slightly off-topic: support open source for publically -funded research

[glen e. p. ropella]

You don't seem to be taking issue with my comment at all,
but some other issue.  My first comment is that using open source
is the same as publishing a part of the specification of
the equipment used in research.  That's *my* comment. [grin]
And you reiterate that you agree with that comment by saying that
if the software is not available for review, then the results
are questionable.  Voila!  We agree.

My second comment is that the software is one (and only one)
description of one of the pieces of equipment used.  If you
disagree with this, you didn't indicate that disagreement.

So, the only thing left to raise your hackles must be the
concept that the software, itself, is not the research.  So,
I'll treat that.  In *some* cases, particularly in computer
science, the software is the research.  And in those cases,
*forcing* the publication of the source code is perfectly
reasonable.  But, even in that case, an alternative *description*
of what the source code is trying to accomplish or demonstrate,
should be provided, if for no other reason than to ensure that
the research can be understood to a reasonably large audience.

Hell, even in mathematics, when a theorem is proven, the author
usually provides some alternative, prosaic, description of what
it was that she proved and why it is important.

All that said, in cases where the software is not the research,
which in most *science* the software is just a tool (saying
that it's just a tool does nothing to degrade it's importance,
just to properly understand it's role), then forcing the
researcher to publish the source code places too much emphasis
on the internal workings of one particular scientific tool.

In this case, we should no more require the publishing of the
source code than we should require the publishing of the
core specifications of all the equipment (like the CPU used,
the motherboard used, the latency between the CPU, memory,
caches, and disk drives used, all the way down to what the
researcher had for breakfast that day!).  Ridiculous!

Good judgement should be relied upon.  A PI should have the
capability (and accountability) to specify which pieces of
equipment are critical to the reproduction of the experiment
and the best communication of the research.  An author should be
allowed to use judgement about where to focus any paper.  And
a reader should be allowed to disagree or agree with the author's
choices.

This is the essence of peer-review.

It is not the essence of peer-review to force researchers to
publish any one thing (e.g. source code).

At 06:56 PM 11/17/2001 +1000, you wrote:
> >research results".  This is mixing metaphors.  Open source is the
> >equivalent of standardized tools in scientific research.  The software,
> >itself, is not the research.  The software is one (and only one)
> >description of one of the pieces of experimental equipment used.
>
> I would take issue with most of this writer's comments, but this one most
> of all.
>
> More and more results of research are going to be critically dependent on
> the software used to produce them.  If it is not available for review,
> then the results are questionable.
>
> Back in the days of Galileo there were those who argued that his 'planets'
> were abberations in the crude optics of his telescopes.  This could only
> be countered by opening them to scrutiny.  So it is with software today.

=><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><==><=
The competent hawk hides its claws.       =><=        Hail Eris!
glen e. p. ropella   =><=   H:831.335.4950  =><=  C:650.776.4616



                 ==================================
  Swarm-Modelling is for discussion of Simulation and Modelling techniques
  esp. using Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp. [un]subscribing),
  please send a message to <address@hidden> with "help" in the
  body of the message.
                 ==================================