During the discussion I had at the European Astronomical Society, I realise how much science 2.0 implications vary across disciplines.
This made me sketch out a set of factors that deeply shape how science 2.0 deployment plays out in a specific scientific field:
- the involvement of industry in funding research: if there is strong industry involvement, there are stricter IPR regimes and less willingness to share. Moreover, in disciplines such as astronomy, with little industry involvement, scientists have less possibility to get rich and are more likely to be motivated purely by curiosity and passion. Hence, science 2.0 can be expected to have a greater impact where industry involvement is smaller
- the kind of data sources: if data are mainly collected through large observatories, as in the case of astronomy, it is often those observatories that decide on data sharing, and it is certainly easier to have highly structured, high quality and curated data, shared through common repositories. In other fields where data gathering is fragmented, there are less central repositories, and data sharing is more costly and difficult
- the public appeal: astronomy is fascinating for everyone, and it is easier to have citizen science initiatives such as GalaxyZoo.
- Big vs small science: it is certainly more common for publications in big science to be reproducible, than it is the case for small science.
- applied vs basic research: related to the previous point, I am not sure how this plays out, but it is possible that basic research is more curiosity driven and therefore keener to openness.
This is obviously just an initial list. What do you think?