Perhaps no one will listen, but my one man movement against scientific web resources is going to continue, both for the access models as well as the funding models. Our two latest examples are the Robetta server and the SDSC protein structure homology modeling server. I found both as I looked for resources to solve a question posed by Jean-Claude. Here is what I ran into.
With Robetta
At this time, Robetta is only available for use by the academic community and other not-for-profit entities.
I suppose that hobby scientists can be considered not-for-profit entities, but my previous two attempts to get access to software with similar language were not successful. We continue to be shackled by artificial boundaries and the artifacts of a system that needs to change, and fast. Admittedly, there is no incentive for anyone to do so, and under the current model, it’s a disincentive, but science is going to suffer if we continue in this vein. The models I prefer are ones where the underlying software is open source, and value add services either open to all, or paid by all. This crazy intermediate model has not worked for the companies selling the software and has really resulted in a poor open source model for a lot of scientific software. The tools are (usually) a means to an end and not the end in itself and the latter is where the value lies.
With SDSC
This server has been shut down, due to insufficiency of the resources to maintain it. Upon resources becoming available the server may start function again.
Note the small print
This service was developed by I.N. Shindyalov and P.E. Bourne and provided by San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC). This work was supported through grants DBI 9630339 and DBI 9808706 from the National Science Foundation and “National Biomedical Computational Resource” grant from the National Institute of Health, NRCC.
The names on that list are not exactly unknown. Now this was set up a long time ago, so the entire part about it being available may be moot, but that’s not the point. The fact remains that at some point in time the server was shut down due to a lack of resources. In the commercial world that would be a market decision, but I am not so sure that this is the case here. Perhaps when it comes to funding infrastructure resources, the NIH treat them as a market, i.e. depends on traffic and other criteria. The current infrastructure funding model just doesn’t provide sustainability. On the flip side those running a resource available to all should make the source available on Github or similar resource. That way, others can fork it and host it on AWS or similar service.
Academic software and infrastructure – AKA more ranting
Perhaps no one will listen, but my one man movement against scientific web resources is going to continue, both for the access models as well as the funding models. Our two latest examples are the Robetta server and the SDSC protein structure homology modeling server. I found both as I looked for resources to solve a question posed by Jean-Claude. Here is what I ran into.
With Robetta
I suppose that hobby scientists can be considered not-for-profit entities, but my previous two attempts to get access to software with similar language were not successful. We continue to be shackled by artificial boundaries and the artifacts of a system that needs to change, and fast. Admittedly, there is no incentive for anyone to do so, and under the current model, it’s a disincentive, but science is going to suffer if we continue in this vein. The models I prefer are ones where the underlying software is open source, and value add services either open to all, or paid by all. This crazy intermediate model has not worked for the companies selling the software and has really resulted in a poor open source model for a lot of scientific software. The tools are (usually) a means to an end and not the end in itself and the latter is where the value lies.
With SDSC
Note the small print
The names on that list are not exactly unknown. Now this was set up a long time ago, so the entire part about it being available may be moot, but that’s not the point. The fact remains that at some point in time the server was shut down due to a lack of resources. In the commercial world that would be a market decision, but I am not so sure that this is the case here. Perhaps when it comes to funding infrastructure resources, the NIH treat them as a market, i.e. depends on traffic and other criteria. The current infrastructure funding model just doesn’t provide sustainability. On the flip side those running a resource available to all should make the source available on Github or similar resource. That way, others can fork it and host it on AWS or similar service.