Search

How did data get so big? Through political, social and economic interests, shows Sabina Leonelli, in the fourth essay on how the past 150 years have shaped the science system, marking Nature's anniversary. How did data get so big? Through political, social and economic interests, shows Sabina Leonelli., Author(s): Sabina Leonelli Author Affiliations: Illustration by Señor Salme Data -- from objects to assets Data. The confusingly plural cornerstone of research. The grounding for a scientific understanding of the [...]

The collection and dissemination of data on human and nonhuman organisms has become a central feature of 21st-century biology and has been endorsed by funding agencies in the United States and Europe as crucial to translating biological research into therapeutic and agricultural innovation. Large molecular data sets, often referred to as "big data," are increasingly incorporated into digital databases, many of which are freely accessible online. These data have come to be seen as resources that play a key role in mediating global market exchange, thus achieving a prominent social and economic status well beyond science itself. At the same time, calls to make all such data publicly and freely available have garnered strength and visibility, most prominently in the form of the Open Data movement. I discuss these developments by considering the conditions under which data journey across the communities and institutions implicated in globalized biology and biomedicine, and what this indicates about how Internet-based communication and the use of online databases affect scientific research and its role within contemporary society.

I argue that Open Science as currently conceptualized and implemented does not take sufficient account of epistemic diversity within research. I use three case studies to exemplify how Open Science threatens to privilege some forms of inquiry over others, thus exasperating divides within and across systems of practice, and overlooking important sources and forms of epistemic diversity. Building on insights from pluralist philosophy, I then identify four aspects of diverse research practices that should serve as reference points for debates around Open Science: (1) specificity to local conditions, (2) entrenchment within repertoires, (3) permeability to newcomers, and (4) demarcation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.08.018 Byline: Hasok Chang (a), Sabina Leonelli (b) Keywords: Theory-choice; Epistemic values; Radiation; Simplicity; Explanatory power; Causal explanation Abstract: We continue our discussion of the competing arguments in favour of the unified theory and the pluralistic theory of radiation advanced by three nineteenth-century pioneers: Herschel, Melloni, and Draper. Our narrative is structured by a consideration of the epistemic criteria relevant to theory-choice; the epistemic focus highlights many little-known aspects of this relatively well-known episode. We argue that the acceptance of light-heat unity (and of the unified theory of radiation more generally) in this period cannot be credibly justified on the basis of common evaluative criteria such as simplicity and standard notions of explanatory power. Whether the consensus was justified by some other criteria remains an open question. Author Affiliation: (a) Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK (b) Faculteit Wijsbegeerte 13A.30, Vrije Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Article History: Received 10 November 2004; Revised 21 April 2005

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.06.010 Byline: Hasok Chang (a), Sabina Leonelli (b) Keywords: Macedonio Melloni; John William Draper; William Herschel; Infrared; Observation; Theory-choice Abstract: Hardly any ontological result of modern science is more firmly established than the fact that infrared radiation differs from light only in wavelength; this is part of the modern conception of the continuous spectrum of electromagnetic radiation reaching from radio waves to gamma radiation. Yet, like many such evident truths, the light-infrared unity was an extremely difficult thing to establish. We examine the competing arguments in favour of the unified and pluralistic theories of radiation, as put forward in the first half of the nineteenth century by three of the most important early pioneers of the study of radiation: Herschel, Melloni and Draper. In this part of the paper, we conclude that there were no compelling reasons of observational adequacy to prefer the unified theory to the pluralistic theory. (Whether there were other conclusive reasons for that preference is the question addressed in Part 2 of the paper.) Author Affiliation: (a) Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK (b) Faculteit Wijsbegeerte 13A.30, Vrije Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Article History: Received 10 November 2004; Revised 21 April 2005

Abstract Background Maintaining a bio-ontology in the long term requires improving and updating its contents so that it adequately captures what is known about biological phenomena. This paper illustrates how these processes are carried out, by studying the ways in which curators at the Gene Ontology have hitherto incorporated new knowledge into their resource. Results Five types of circumstances are singled out as warranting changes in the ontology: (1) the emergence of anomalies within GO; (2) the extension of the scope of GO; (3) divergence in how terminology is used across user communities; (4) new discoveries that change the meaning of the terms used and their relations to each other; and (5) the extension of the range of relations used to link entities or processes described by GO terms. Conclusion This study illustrates the difficulties involved in applying general standards to the development of a specific ontology. Ontology curation aims to produce a faithful representation of knowledge domains as they keep developing, which requires the translation of general guidelines into specific representations of reality and an understanding of how scientific knowledge is produced and constantly updated. In this context, it is important that trained curators with technical expertise in the scientific field(s) in question are involved in supervising ontology shifts and identifying inaccuracies.

Successful collaborative research is dependent on excellent ideas and innovative experimental approaches, as well as the provision of appropriate support networks. Collaboration requires venues, infrastructures, training facilities, and, perhaps most importantly, a sustained commitment to work together as a community. These activities do not occur without significant effort, yet can be facilitated and overseen by the leadership of a research network that has a clearly defined role to help build resources for their community. Over the past 20 years, this is a role that the UKRI-BBSRC-funded GARNet network has played in the support of the UK curiosity-driven, discovery-led plant science research community. This article reviews the lessons learnt by GARNet in the hope that they can inform the practical implementation of current and future research networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]