Ever since I made the switch to Linux, I’ve been rabidly enthusiastic about all things open-source.  I know how I feel if given the choice between Firefox and [insert name of other browser here], but this concept would seem to require much deeper consideration.

“The system is hidebound, expensive and elitist, they say. Peer review can take months, journal subscriptions can be prohibitively costly, and a handful of gatekeepers limit the flow of information. It is an ideal system for sharing knowledge, said the quantum physicist Michael Nielsen, only ‘if you’re stuck with 17th-century technology.'”

What do you think the future holds for “open science?”  If an active “open science” community makes a thorough effort to ensure methodologically sound and reproducible research, how might the results be different from existing publication standards?

Regarding this story from the Times:

How do we emphasize the importance of rigorous, often tedious work while acknowledging the potential for great achievement? Are we setting our children up to fail with unrealistic expectations, or loading down our college freshmen with theory divorced from its natural context?

“Studies have found that roughly 40 percent of students planning engineering and science majors end up switching to other subjects or failing to get any degree. That increases to as much as 60 percent when pre-medical students, who typically have the strongest SAT scores and high school science preparation, are included, according to new data from the University of California at Los Angeles. That is twice the combined attrition rate of all other majors.”