Month: May 2009

Must reading for those interested in Open Science – Michael Nielsen on "Doing Science in the Open"

Not much for me to add here other than to tell everyone interested in Open Science that you should look at Michael Nielsen’s article: Doing science in the open – physicsworld.com. It covers a wide range of topics from secrecy to journals to the internet to online commenting to wikipedia to collaboration to FriendFeed. It has lots of interesting points in there. Hat tip toDavie Bacon / The Quantum Pontiff.

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Open Access Pioneer Award: Bob Shafer HIV DB

Bob Shafer, an Associate Professor at Stanford, is fighting to make information about HIV freely available. He runs a database called HIVDB that aims to make information about HIV drug resistance available to the broader community. And he has been doing this for years (note – I worked with Bob when I was a PhD student and he was getting HIVDB started – we even wrote a paper together where I helped him do some phylogenetic analysis of HIV). For that alone, Bob deserves an Open Access Pioneer award. But I am giving him one here for a fight he has taken on recently.

You see, a company called Advanced Biological Laboratories, S.A has been suing Shafer and Stanford over a patent dispute. The company seems to be trying to claim to have rights over many (or maybe they think all) uses of using computers to help doctors make medical decisions. And they have been trying to get people to license their IP/software for doing this and one way they appear to be trying to get “users” is by suing them. And Bob is one of the people they have sued.

Sadly, Stanford University appears to have given in to the lawsuits even though their validity is debatable (see The Fight of His Life which provides some of the details – Hat Tip to Bill Hooker and FriendFeed for highlighting this article) and Bob has been left hanging on his own. Instead of caving to the lawsuit and shutting down HIVDB or making it less openly available or requiring people to say they will give commercial rights to Advanced Biological Laboratories for anything they develop using the DB. And rather than cave to the lawsuits Bob is fighting back – with a website called harmfulpatents.org and with a set of letters and communications. Mind you, I know little about IP/patent laws or the legal issues behind this dispute. But if this lawsuit leads to the shutting down or restriction of HIVDB that would be proof enough to me that Advanced Biological Laboratories and the legal system that supports them is doing a disservice to the progress of science.

For his efforts in keeping HIVDB open I am giving Bob Shafer a Open Access Pioneer Award.

For more on this story see
——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Elsevier, fake medical journals, and yet another reason for #openaccess

For those of you not in the loop on this there is a bubbling story going around the web and in some news sources about Elsevier publishing fake science/medical journals for hire. First reported by The Scientist (as far as I can tell), the story just seems to get worse and worse. Basically, it seems one branch of Elsevier published a series of journals that were little more than advertisements for Merck products while pretending to be independent journals.

The whole thing is pretty sad. The head of Elsevier as well as multiple people that have worked at Elsevier seem to have not been aware of that these were being used to pretend they were real journals. But I think one this is abundantly clear – we can cross of the list of criticisms of Open Access publishing that the costly non open access journals and publishers are protecting the world from bad science. Instead, it seems like they are in fact explicitly and purposefully pushing bad science and medicine in order to make extra money. Lovely.

For more informaiton on the story see for example, Kate McDonald in the Australian Life Scientist (see Elsevier published fake medical journals – Elsevier Australia, Merck, Vioxx – Australian Life Scientist). In this article she reports:

The CEO of Elsevier’s Health Sciences division in the US, Michael Hansen, has now issued a statement admitting the company’s Australian office published six journals paid for by pharmaceutical companies.

Also see for example Forbes (via AP). The best source on this has been the Bloggosphere where there were a large number of discussions including

My favorite source so far has been Bill Hooker at Open Reading Frame who did some really useful digging into the details of what was being published. After his posting there has been an interesting discussion on FriendFeed (see embed below)

http://friendfeed.com/billhooker/6907bac6/no-bottom-to-worse-at-elsevier?embed=1

There also has been some other discussion on FriendFeed including the following from a Graham Steel posting:

http://friendfeed.com/mcdawg/9b919af7/statement-from-michael-hansen-ceo-of-elsevier?embed=1

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Tour of California moving to May for 2010

The Tour of California has announced it will be held May 16-23 next year (see e.g., Velonews –  Amgen Tour of California May 16-23 ).  Good and bad news in this.  The good news is the weather will likely be a lot better than the February time slot.  Bad news is this competes with the Giro and it is unclear what riders/teams will come. 

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Research council of UK gives additional thumbs up for open access publishing

The RCUK (Research Councils of the UK) has published a new report on open access (see RCUK publishes report on open access study):

The purpose of the study was to identify the effects and impacts of open access on publishing models and institutional repositories in light of national and international trends. This included the impact of open access on the quality and efficiency of scholarly outputs, specifically journal articles. The report presents options for the Research Councils to consider, such as maintaining the current variation in Research Councils’ mandates, or moving towards increased open access, eventually leading to Gold Standard.

…

In response to the study, the Chief Executives of the Research Councils have agreed that over time the UK Research Councils will support increased open access, by:

  • building on their mandates on grant-holders to deposit research papers in suitable repositories within an agreed time period, and;
  • extending their support for publishing in open access journals, including through the pay-to-publish model.

Hat tip to Karla Heidelberg for pointing this out.

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Public Lecture on Population Genomics at Davis Today

Once each year the Davis Division of the Academic Senate selects a Faculty Research Lecturer, who gives a public lecture under the auspices of the Chancellor and the Chair of the Davis Division. The lecturer is singled out for the distinction of their scholarly research, chiefly for efforts carried out while a member of the Davis faculty.

The Faculty Research Lectureship is the highest honor the Davis Division of the Academic Senate accords its members.

Please join us this evening as the campus honors our distinguished colleague

Charles “Chuck” Langley

Distinguished Professor

&

2009 Faculty Research Lecturer

Wednesday May 6, 2009

4:00 – 5:00 p.m.

A reception sponsored by Ken Burtis, Dean of the College of Biological Sciences, and

Maureen Stanton, Chair of the Department of Evolution and Ecology will follow the lecture.

Activities & Recreation Center (ARC) Ballroom

BioSci_Sig_Horizontal_emailsig (2)

Events Coordinator Office of the Dean

202 Life Science Davis, CA 95616

phone 530.752.2358 fax 530.752.2604

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Public Lecture at Davis Today – Chuck Langley on "Population Genomics"

Once each year the Davis Division of the Academic Senate selects a Faculty Research Lecturer, who gives a public lecture under the auspices of the Chancellor and the Chair of the Davis Division. The lecturer is singled out for the distinction of their scholarly research, chiefly for efforts carried out while a member of the Davis faculty.

 

The Faculty Research Lectureship is the highest honor the Davis Division of the Academic Senate accords its members.

 

Please join us this evening as the campus honors our distinguished colleague

Charles “Chuck” Langley

Distinguished Professor

&

2009 Faculty Research Lecturer

 

Wednesday May 6, 2009

4:00 – 5:00 p.m.

 

A reception sponsored by Ken Burtis, Dean of the College of Biological Sciences, and

Maureen Stanton, Chair of the Department of Evolution and Ecology will follow the lecture.

 

Activities & Recreation Center (ARC) Ballroom

 

 

 

BioSci_Sig_Horizontal_emailsig (2)

Events Coordinator   Office of the Dean

202 Life Science   Davis, CA 95616

phone 530.752.2358   fax 530.752.2604

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Morgan Price – Pushing the Frontiers of Genomics

Well, this is one of those times when I feel completely blown away by some else’s brilliance.  And, since I am a bit on the cocky side, this does not happen all that often. But last week it did.  We had a guest come and give a presentation for my lab meeting. His name is Morgan Price and he works in Adam Arkin’s lab at Lawrence Berkeley Lab. He is truly pushing the bubble in terms of designing useful software for carrying out comparative and evolutionary genome analyses.  Among his software/tools are FastTree and FastHMM & FastBLAST and MicrobesOnline.org

all of which are of great value in the era of ever expanding genome data accumulation. FastTree is particularly nice, allowing one to build evolutionary trees for data sets including hundreds of thousands of sequences.  And on top of all of this he appears to be big on Open Access Publishing. Anyway – just a little posting here to get people to check out some of his cool computational toys.
——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Seeking information on undergraduate programs/majors in genomics and/or genome biology?

I am looking around to find examples of undergraduate programs/majors in genomics or genome biology.  I got a couple of potential examples from a post I made on friendfeed but am looking for more.  What I am looking for is not just courses in genomics but majors/programs in genomics … do they exist and if so, where and what do they look like.  Any information would be helpful.  Here is what I have found so far:

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Francis Collins Launches Biologos – a strange re-working of theistic evolution

Biologos.  All I can say is, well, I am just really baffled by the whole thing. I am all for trying to have discussions about science and religion. But I do not think the two topics are really compatible in the sense of merging them together. Science (and medicine) should be about, well, science. And religion can be about whatever it wants to be. And when we can get religious and scientific leaders together to talk about the implications of each area on the other and on the world, fine too.  But merging the two together into one hybrid such as Christian Science and Creation Science?  Not for me.
Thus it is with some horror that I have been browsing the web site for Francis Collins’ new The BioLogos Mission | The BioLogos Foundation (f0r some other discussions of it see e.g., Larry Moran’s discussion here, and PZ Myers here and Time Magazine here and US News here). BioLogos appears to be Collins attempt to promote a slight variant of “theistic evolution” which he has been discussing for years and is also in his recent book.
And whatever you may think of theistic evolution, the Biologos version of it is just icky in many ways in my mind. For example, the site has many many links and pointers to books authored by the members of the Foundation (e.g., the front page says “Among other resources, this website posts responses to many of the questions received by Collins, Giberson, and Falk since the publication of their books, including: The Language of God; Saving Darwin; and Coming to Peace With Science.”) There are also other links to this page with ads for their books. Not that there is anything wrong with selling ones books, but to have a foundation whose purpose seems in a large part to promote one’s books really seems distasteful. 
And the details of Collins attempt to merge science and religion into a version of theistic evolution are really unclean.  Basically, he is trying to argue that on the one hand science and religion are completely separate activities (I support this) but at the same time argues that God can intervene in the setting up of natural laws and in providing some guidance here and there in order to, for example, produce human beings in his image.  
The web site repeats some things from Collins book that are equally illogical – such as saying that altruism can be explained by science (and even specifically saying that science is the way to explain the natural world) but then turning around and saying that science cannot explain extreme forms of altruism (and therefore implying that actually, the natural world cannot be explained by science).  Which is it?  Is science for the natural world or not?
What one wants to believe in terms of faith/religion is a highly personal issue.  But trying to both say that science and religion are completely separate but also that they are not is just completely illogical.  
UPDATE: See also:

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–