Today I've read a great book by Sabina Leonelli: "The #philosophy of #openscience".
It's hard to summarise (I've just put it down), but it highlights how OS puts a lot of focus on the data as research objects while in some cases disregarding the human contribution, and in particular the importance of connections between humans, that went into it.
She argues that "commodifying" data is prone to capitalist exploitation, among many other concepts.
I think she has a hard, but meaningful, stance.
@MrHedmad I'm not sure I totally get the point (but haven't read the book!). What is the alternative she is proposing? Also, I'm not totally sure why she argues that human contribution is disregarded, I would argue that it's much more put into focus, but I might be misreading her point.
@nicolaromano The fact that I didn't explain myself well + 500 chars max doesn't help.
In essence (and iiuc) she argues that a lot of OS is backed by the feeling that science is done trough assembly of data "bricks", thus commodifying it. This may give unfair advantage to some OS stakeholders (companies) vs others (e.g. farmers) for to a variety of reasons, like access to means of using the open data. She gives examples of how the EU backs OS specifically for the monetary connotations of OS
@nicolaromano The "not giving due recognition" is expanded here in the act of "everyone benefits from OS equally". She proposes a self-scrutinising connection-centric alternative, where the emphasis is on forging meaningful, conscious connections between people practicing science for some common goal.
She argues that simply "make everything open" is not enough, and potentially, paradoxically, can exacerbate existing inequalities e.g. to poorer countries due to the existing imbalance itself
