Online Or Invisible

Shouldn't knowledge that is widely useful be Online, or should it remain Invisible to some?

One of the problems encountered in the progress of knowledge proliferation is how far do we want to go, and how fast do we intend to get there? How important is it that the knowledge useful in the many disciplines be made available for those within and without the originating space?

In scientific circles, the following concern has been expressed:

The volume of scientific literature typically far exceeds the ability of scientists to identify and utilize all relevant information in their research.

Improvements to the accessibility of scientific literature, allowing scientists to locate more relevant research within a given time, have the potential to dramatically improve communication and progress in science.

The creation of online search facilities, such as Google, and others, has made searching for relevant information much easier, but some online information might just as well be invisible as it is restricted to members of the originating space or at costs prohibitive for general inquiries. While this may be beneficial, the question arises, would it be more beneficial to make it available "freely" online?

Should some knowledge and information be available only for those who can afford it? Should information and knowledge generated by public funds be available only to those who have access to the originating space?

Holding back scientific progress?

The process of scientific publication in privately owned journals, which has heretofore served the community well, now shows the potential to hold back scientific progress for just this reason. Typically only the abstract to work is available free of charge online with subscriptions being required to view the full text and figures. The problem is that the abstract is usually limited to somewhere between 100 and 300 words and no matter how much you try to cram it full of key words and phrases, for sure something is going to be missed such that a person previously unaware of the work will remain unaware despite their search efforts to find it. Some biomedical journals, notably Nucleic Acids Research, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science and the Journal of Biological Chemistry offer the full text online for free, although the ability to search the full text is generally not yet supported. One compromise policy that I find relatively inoffensive is to have the full text of articles older than a certain age (say, 6 months) available for free with newer articles requiring a subscription. That still holds up scientific progress, but maybe not too badly. There is also an issue of why exactly the owners/editors of scientific journals, with possibly no scientific training whatsoever, are given the power to control the existence (publication) of scientific work. Personally, I feel the editors/owners could be removed from the process. I have set up the wiki-like Peer Reviewed Biology project (http://www.peerreviewedbiology.com) in an effort to explore this possibility. -- AndyPierce

Medical Information Online

A useful example to study might be the proliferation of medical texts and studies online, and the formation of support-and-advocacy groups that use this information really heavily. Most of the people in these groups do not have formal medical training, but usually develop interest in a given subject after they or a family member develop a given condition. There are a number of positive effects of this: better outreach and education efforts; these groups have been responsible for securing and steering research funding; some people's efforts have even led them to found research-related companies themselves.

Of course, there are no doubt a lot of risks involved with this. Generally the biggest concern is that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that someone without a fundamental understanding of medicine may fall prey to charlatans or just sloppy science.

One article that discusses this appeared in WiredMagazine? in September 2001: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.09/disease.html