Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
A bit more about the cross-sector piece.
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
arokem committed Jun 19, 2024
1 parent 2581b15 commit 6e722ce
Showing 1 changed file with 38 additions and 7 deletions.
45 changes: 38 additions & 7 deletions sections/xx-cross-sector.qmd
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -52,19 +52,50 @@ executive director, Brian Nosek, entitled "Strategy for Culture Change"
science requires an alignment of not only incentives and values, but also
technical infrastructure and user experience. A sociotechnical bridge between
these pieces, which makes the adoption of standards possible, and maybe even
easy, and the policy goals, arises from a community of practice that makes
easy, and the policy goals, arises from a community of practice that makes the
adoption of standards *normative*. Once all of these pieces are in place,
making adoption of open science standards *required* through policy becomes
more straightforward and less onerous.

## Funding

While government-set policy is primarily directed towards research that is
funded through governmental funding agencies, there are other ways in which
funding relates to the development of open-source standards. One way is in
funding the development of these standards. For example, the National
Institutes of Health have provided some of the funding for the development of
the Brain Imaging Data Structure standard in neuroscience. Where large governmental funding agencies may not have
Government-set policy intersects with funding considerations. This is because
it is primarily directed towards research that is funded through governmental
funding agencies. For example, high-level policy guidance boils to practice in
guidance for data management plans that are part of funded research. In
response to the policy guidance, these have become increasingly more detailed
and, for example, NSF- and NIH-funded researchers are now required to both
formulate their plans with more clarity and increasingly also to share data
using specified standards as a condition for funding.

However, there are other ways in which funding relates to the development of
open-source standards. For example, through the BRAIN Initiative, the National
Institutes of Health have provided key funding for the development of the Brain
Imaging Data Structure standard in neuroscience. Where large governmental
funding agencies may not have the resources or agility required to fund nascent
or unconventional ways of formulating standards, funding by non-governmental
philanthropies and other organizations can provide alternatives. One example
(out of many) is the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative program for Essential Open
Source Software, which funds foundational open-source software projects that
have an application in biomedical sciences. Distinct from NIH funding, however,
some of this investment focuses on the development of OSS practices. For
example, funding to the Arrow project that focuses on developing open-source
software maintenance skills and practices, rather than a specific biomedical
application.


## Industry

Interactions of data and meta-data standards with commercial interests may
provide specific sources of friction. This is because proprietary/closed
formats of data can create difficulty at various transition points: from one
instrument vendor to another, from data producer to downstream recipient/user,
etc. On the other hand, in some cases cross-sector collaborations with
commercial entities may pave the way to robust and useful standards. One
example is the DICOM standard, which is maintained by working groups that
encompass commercial imaging device vendors and researchers.





0 comments on commit 6e722ce

Please sign in to comment.