The Gathering for Open Science Hardware 2017 organising committee and a talented set of people with skills and experience in areas of policy, IP, business, maker networks and other areas complementary to GOSH are meeting at CERN 2-4 March 2017 to draft a roadmap for open science hardware that will be shared for comment with the broader GOSH community in advance of GOSH 2017. Read on for more information and look out for further updates via the website!
Roadmap purpose: Before GOSH 2016 and increasingly during the meeting it was clear that attendees are attempting to advocate for Open Science Hardware approaches within their institutions and at higher levels. They require and have started gathering material which lays out the impact of Open Science Hardware, emphasizing the aspects that are important to research administrators and policy makers, such as improved knowledge transfer, international exchange, accelerated innovation. The roadmap will include this and also detail the actions those stakeholders can take alongside the community of Open Science Hardware developers and users to move the field forward and overcome barriers to implementation and uptake.
Roadmap goals: One primary goal is to have an impact on major science organizations – both funders and labs – by outlining clearly the many benefits of OSH for conventional science institutions, while detailing the remaining challenges facing its wider uptake and being complementary to the GOSH Manifesto, which is focused on building and articulating the values of the GOSH community. However, we also want the roadmap to be flexible and inclusive, and accommodate that there are rural, no-power, non-scaled uses of OSH, as well as commercial and industrial uses, as well as uses in art. We believe that encouraging policies that are inclusive of OSH can achieve both of these goals.
Anticipated outcomes (reflecting funder metrics):
- Online roadmap to be updated as a living document with an anticipated 1000 views in the first three months post-publication
- Significant coverage in scientific news outlets
- Printed roadmap for distribution at events and to key audiences.
- Publications in relevant scientific journals
- Presentations at major scientific and related meeting with an anticipated 15 conference presentations
Other desired outcomes
- Distribution in Hacker/Makerspace communities and broad visibility in relevant online geek/tech media
- Engage the traditional press to build up pressure on policy-makers and funders
- Presentation at international meetings on society, culture and art
- Promote open science hardware in higher and school education
- The rest saves the west: promote it in emerging countries of the majority world
Recommended pre-workshop reading:
The following paper and documents were recommended by the participants as pre-reading
- GOSH 2016 roadmap topics (please note it does say “manifesto”, but this became a different document.
- Kera, Denisa. “Open source hardware (OSHW) for open science in the global south: geek diplomacy?.” Open Science: 133.
- Gkotsopoulou, Olga, et al. “Position paper for the endorsement of Free Software and Open Standards in Horizon 2020 and all publicly-funded research.” Nature Methods 4.3 (2007): 189-189.
- Serrano, J. “Open Hardware And Collaboration“. Proceedings of PCaPAC2016, Campinas, Brazil – (2016)
- La sémiosphère du Commun http://utopiana.ch/la-semiosphere-du-commun/. Retrieved 2 March 2017
- Huang, Bunnie. “From Gongkai to Open Source” (2014). Retrieved 2 March 2017
- Battaglia, Eugenio. “OpenDrop: a tale from the future“. Retrieved 2 March 2017
|Thursday, March 2|
|9:00||Group introductions [Francois]||IdeaSquare|
|9:30-11:30||Introduction to GOSH and aims of roadmap [Francois]
Where the idea for the roadmap came from
Process so far and planned methods of working through the roadmap drafting process
What does the roadmap look like– are there suggested next steps (ex. Creating x for high school teachers)? What are the clearest ways to lay out steps towards action?
Anticipated and desired outcomes
What’s been brainstormed (roadmap document)
Does the agenda look like we can achieve this? If not, how should it look?
|11:30-13:30||Working groups I – based on earlier discussion on agenda
Example: i. Legal, ii. Policy, iii. Technology
Groups focus on identifying big challenges and a major opportunities for open science hardware in each of these areas. How to approach them through concrete recommendations for action.
|14:30-16:00||Working groups II (suggested i. Business models/funding, ii. Science, iii. Social/community)||IdeaSquare|
|16:00-17:00||Return to full group and feedback on discussions
Develop impact effort matrix
|17:00||Leave for Geneva Campus Biotech||Train/GCB|
|19:00||Fondue with LIFT||Bain des Paquis|
|Friday, March 3|
|9:00-12:00||Full day with whole group focused on drawing out concrete actions and identifying knowledge gaps and who might fill them||IdeaSquare|
|14:00-16:00||Full day with whole group focused on drawing out concrete actions and identifying knowledge gaps and who might fill them||IdeaSquare|
|17:00-19:00||CERN Atlas visit|
|20:00||CERN Restaurant 1 dinner|
|Saturday, March 4|
|9:00-12:00||Morning wrap-up and roadmap drafting session||IdeaSquare|
- Shannon Dosemagen, Public Lab
- Jenny Molloy, University of Cambridge
- Anna Lowe, MakerNet
- Luis Felipe R. Murillo,
- Greg Austic, PhotoSynQ
- Urs Gaudenz, Gaudi Labs and Hackteria
- Tom Igoe, NYU-ITP
- Francois Grey, University of Geneva
- Javier Serrano, CERN
- Pietari Kauttu, CERN
- Sebastian Fievet (Drop In), CERN
- Sharada Mohanty (Drop In), EPFL
- Thomas Maillart (Drop In), University of Geneva
- Myriam Ayass (Drop In), CERN
- Tiago Sergio Santos Rodrigues De Araujo (Drop In)