Open biology is the new buzzword

Rob Carlson (right), the author of Biology is Technology, and who first coined the term open source biology six years ago, wants to change it to open biology, saying the comparisons between DNA and computer code aren't there.

To me this is a question of call me sour, call me kraut but don't call me late for supper. There are lots of legal firewalls in biology, starting with the patenting of genomes. The Gates Foundation action of last year, mandating that AIDS researchers getting its money share their secrets, is just one demonstration that this is a real problem.

Sharing and collaboration are at the heart of all scientific inquiry. But Carlson makes an excellent point -- there is nothing like the GPL in biology. (Although there is the Creative Commons license for research papers, as used at the Rice University Connexxions service.)

Regardless of the term which is used, the need for the open biology movement is obvious. We have enormous challenges which only open inquiry can meet, but we have a research system where all the incentives run toward keeping discoveries secret with patent and copyright.

Carlson admits more innovation is needed before we can get where we need to go:

So here we sit, needing much fast innovation in biological technologies in order to produce carbon neutral fuels, improve human health, and deal with emerging threats such as SARS and pandemic influenza.  Open Biology is part of that, somehow, but I still don't see a clear path to implementing the ideas within the context of the real economic system we live in every day.

So I'll ask you. How do we apply the lessons of open source to biology?