Sector: business

Deborah Berry at the Conversation: “…to perform top-quality and cost-effective research, scientists need these technologies and the technical knowledge of experts to run them. When money is tight, where can scientists turn for the tools they need to complete their projects?

Sharing resources

An early solution to this problem was to create what the academic world calls “resource labs” that specialize in one or more specific type of science experiments (e.g., genomics, cell culture, proteomics). Researchers can then order and pay for that type of experiment from the resource lab instead of doing it on their own.

By focusing on one area of science, resource labs become the experts in that area and do the experiments better, faster and cheaper than most scientists could do in their own labs. Scientists no longer stumble through failed experiments trying to learn a new technique when a resource lab can do it correctly from the start.

The pooled funds from many research projects allow resource labs to buy better and faster equipment than any individual scientist could afford. This provides more researchers access to better technology at lower costs – which also saves taxpayers money, since many grants are government-backed….

Connecting people on a scientific Craigslist

This is a common paradox, with several efforts under way to address it. For example, MIT has created several “remote online laboratories” running experiments that can be controlled via the internet, to help enrich teaching in places that can’t afford advanced equipment. Harvard’s eagle-i system is a directory where researchers can list information, data and equipment they are willing to share with others – including cell lines, research mice, and equipment. Different services work for different institutions.

In 2011, Dr. Elizabeth Iorns, a breast cancer researcher, developed a mouse model to study how breast cancer spreads, but her institution didn’t have the equipment to finish one part of her study. My resource lab could complete the project, but despite significant searching, Dr. Iorns did not have an effective way to find labs like mine.

Actively connecting scientists with resource labs, and helping resource labs keep their equipment optimally busy, is a model Iorns and cofounder Dan Knox have developed into a business, called Science Exchange. (I am on its Lab Advisory Board, but have no financial interest in the company.) A little bit Craigslist and Travelocity for science rolled into one, Science Exchange provides scientists and expert resource labs a way to find each other to keep research progressing.

Unlike Starbucks, resource labs are not found on every corner and can be difficult for scientists to find. Now a simple search provides scientists a list of multiple resource labs that could do the experiments, including estimated costs and speed – and even previous users’ reviews of the choices.

I signed onto Science Exchange soon after it went live and Iorns immediately sent her project to my lab. We completed the project quickly, resulting in the first peer-reviewed publication made possible through Science Exchange….(More).

Nathan Collins at Pacific Standard: “…there are contests like the DARPA Robotics Challenge, which gives prizes for solving particularly difficult problems, like how to prevent an autonomous vehicle from crashing.

But who wins such contests, and how? One might think it’s the science insiders, since they have the knowledge and background to solve difficult scientific problems. It’s hard to imagine, for example, a political scientist solving a major problem in theoretical physics. At the same time, insiders can become inflexible, having been so ensconced in a particular way of thinking that they can’t see outside of the box, let alone think outside it.

Unfortunately, most of what we know about insiders, outsiders, and scientific success is anecdotal. (Hedy Lamarr, the late actress and co-inventor of a key wireless technology, is a prominent anecdote, but still just an anecdote.) To remedy that, Oguz Ali Acar and Jan van den Ende decided to conduct a proper study. For data, they looked to InnoCentive, an online platform that “crowdsource[s] innovative solutions from the world’s smartest people, who compete to provide ideas and solutions to important business, social, policy, scientific, and technical challenges,” according to its website.

Acar and van den Ende surveyed 230 InnoCentive contest participants, who reported how much expertise they had related to the last problem they’d solved, along with how much experience they had solving similar problems in the past, regardless of whether it was related to their professional expertise. The researchers also asked how many different scientific fields problem solvers had looked to for ideas, and how much effort they’d put into their solutions. For each of the solvers, the researchers then looked at all the contests that person won and computed their odds of winning—a measure of creativity, they argue, since contests are judged in part on the solutions’ creativity.

That data revealed an intuitive, though not entirely simple pattern. Insiders (think Richard Feynman in physics) were more likely to win a contest when they cast a wide net for ideas, while outsiders (like Lamarr) performed best when they focused on one scientific or technological domain. In other words, outsiders—who may bring a useful new perspective to bear—should bone up on the problem they’re trying to solve, while insiders, who’ve already done their homework, benefit from thinking outside the box.

Still, there’s something both groups can’t do without: hard work. “[I]f insiders … spend significant amounts of time seeking out knowledge from a wide variety of other fields, they are more likely to be creative in that domain,” Acar and van den Ende write, and if outsiders work hard, they “can turn their lack of knowledge in a domain into an advantage.”….(More)”