The Definition of Open Science: What Went Wrong With Cold Fusion?

My husband, Tyler, is a Physical Chemistry Master's student at BYU, and when I asked him if open science is a good thing, he told me with a puzzled look, "It already is. The SCIENCE is always open. Good papers already publish their raw data in an Appendix, as well as their methods for calculation. Anyone has full access to the science produced by the research."

When I further asked about processes that have been discovered and Patented, he gave me several examples of processes that have been Patented by professors in his department, the details of which are not available to the general public. He then said that those processes are property, based on science. He gave me an example of a company, like a Chevron Refinery (I had an internship in Process Engineering there last summer), that keeps its processes confidential. This is a no-brainer to me, because Chevron would not invest all the money it does into R&D if it weren't for the advantage it gives them in their business. (Note that Process Engineering has nothing to do with inventing processes, but just solving problems in a currently running plant to make sure it works correctly.)

I think Tyler's perspective is interesting because it involves how we define "Open Science." By reading Garret Bassett's post that defines Open Science, as it has been coined, I have realized that the term has a different meaning than literally "open science". As Michelle Frandsen brings up in her blog, this could have dangerous consequences, especially if a study is not conclusive before its results are made public.


I read a book called Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud by Robert Park. He explains the cause and problems with the Cold Fusion incident very clearly. Apparently, the problem was not that Fleischmann and Pons (the two scientists from the University of Utah that claimed they had performed cold fusion) followed the protocol for scientific discovery. The problem was the "standard of scientific conduct was being flagrantly violated by the University of Utah" (see page 16). The scientists went directly to the media with their results, rather than going through careful review within the scientific community that is "normal" according to Park. Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims are expected to be backed up by extraordinary evidence." Apparently, the standard for scientific work, as viewed by the scientific community, is openness for review, critique, and reproduction, before publication (or in the U of U case, before going to the media).

The standard for the scientific community is currently open science, and when this is breached, this is when there are problems with fraudulent claims. However, when it comes to processes specific to carrying out scientific research, these are regarded as property, and must be protected if we want scientific progress to remain at its current rate, or accelerate. As Gideon Burton posted in +Google, The Guardian states the main reason that "Open Science" won't work is simply because of credit. Scientists want their work to be published by a credible source.

Brandon Robison brings up a good point about the Pharmaceutical industry. It is very expensive to produce a new medicine, and the main driving force for research today is the profits that will be made by the company having a monopoly on that drug. However, patents for drugs are not nearly as long as the copyrights in the entertainment industry (the life of the author + 75 years). It's usually only 8-10 years by the time the clinical trials are finished. Then generic brands are able to put their version of the drug, using the same ingredients, on the market, which drives down the price. This seems like a reasonable time to me for the company to recuperate the expenses for developing the drug, and motivate them to develop more.

The question I have for you is this: would open science actually lead to more discoveries, or would the driving force in the scientific world be removed, slowing down progress?