| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Support
Forum: Suggestions / Feedback
Thread: WCG's ethical guidelines for volunteer DC |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 139
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Twilyth, if all external researchers who have any influence on how the WCG affiliated projects are run, had been required to list all their professional contacts with different corporations and it later came out that they had "forgotten" to name certain companies, they would have been professionally shamed -- without any legal ramifications for WCG. The administrators of the grid would simply have updated the researchers' public PDFs and added the new companies into the their contact lists. Then they would have publicly stated that the WCG affiliated research teams were not allowed to collaborate with these external researchers for, let's say 2 weeks, because they had submitted incomplete lists.
This is basic administration, but also moral sanitation. The result of this would have been a professional shaming. The consequence of similar actions today, without these PDFs, are none. What's worse, we'll never know which companies are employing these researchers since there are absolutely no requirements to divulge this kind of information. Yes, I do want WCG to establish a moral baseline and it doesn't have to cover all eventualities. Any would do. Is my request completely unreasonable? Theodolite, I'm merely stating an opinion. This is the suggestion forum and its purpose is to give suggestions to the WCG administrators. But thanks for the legal reminder. Sgt.Joe, does allowing a few corner cutting multinational corporations to externalize their research budgets to gullible, altruistic individuals, while diverting the saved money to their own shareholders and bonus-levered CEOs, sit well with you? This is what happens if some corporations get information ahead of publication. |
||
|
|
twilyth
Master Cruncher US Joined: Mar 30, 2007 Post Count: 2129 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Twilyth, if all external researchers who have any influence on how the WCG affiliated projects are run, had been required to list all their professional contacts with different corporations and it later came out that they had "forgotten" to name certain companies, they would have been professionally shamed -- without any legal ramifications for WCG. The administrators of the grid would simply have updated the researchers' public PDFs and added the new companies into the their contact lists. Then they would have publicly stated that the WCG affiliated research teams were not allowed to collaborate with these external researchers for, let's say 2 weeks, because they had submitted incomplete lists. This is basic administration, but also moral sanitation. The result of this would have been a professional shaming. The consequence of similar actions today, without these PDFs, are none. What's worse, we'll never know which companies are employing these researchers since there are absolutely no requirements to divulge this kind of information. Yes, I do want WCG to establish a moral baseline and it doesn't have to cover all eventualities. Any would do. Is my request completely unreasonable? Theodolite, I'm merely stating an opinion. This is the suggestion forum and its purpose is to give suggestions to the WCG administrators. But thanks for the legal reminder. Sgt.Joe, does allowing a few corner cutting multinational corporations to externalize their research budgets to gullible, altruistic individuals, while diverting the saved money to their own shareholders and bonus-levered CEOs, sit well with you? This is what happens if some corporations get information ahead of publication. Maybe I've misunderstood but it was my impression that your main concern was that research associates would be giving data to 3rd parties prior to that data being released by the project. If that observation is correct, how does this help? What you seem to be requiring is that all associates be listed by the project. That seems innocuous enough. But how do you get from listing or not listing a person or entity to the idea that there has somehow been a data breach? My point is that having an accurate or inaccurate list of associates tells you nothing about whether or not data is being leaked unless you regard certain associates as inherently untrustworthy. And if that's the case, who is really in the best position to make that determination? Additionally, unless you are going to ban associates deemed untrustworthy, how is the mere fact that they are listed going to prevent a breach?   [Edit 1 times, last edit by twilyth at Sep 16, 2015 5:01:12 AM] |
||
|
|
KLiK
Master Cruncher Croatia Joined: Nov 13, 2006 Post Count: 3108 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
The Harvard scientists make the results available to researchers via its public database of molecular structures and photovoltaic properties. Is that database updated in real-time? AS LONG as that molecule is NOT PATENTED by LG or any other company! That's what worries me. Edit I don't mind if LG or any other company patent the molecules, but I do mind if it's done because they had access to data ahead of other companies. The reason we're here is because we want to do the groundwork so that companies out there don't have to do the same crunching over and over again. Their research becomes elevated to a higher level, which is what we want. Normally the lines between universities and corporations are blurred. Both give and both take, and everybody profits. But with DC, where the computing time is donated by outsiders, things work differently and the scientist are not used to this. In a laboratory an intern can work for free, but this person is gaining knowledge in return. We are giving without receiving anything in return. This means different, more stringent, set of rules should apply. I'm asking: are there any? well I do mind if some1 patents a "donated time of my computer" for their own profit...all projects run here have a "humanitarian signature"...so I'd like that Harward uni patents this data & make if FREE or of small charge for Uni purposes ('cause I don't mind funding science & Uni that way)... but I do mind funding a large corp like LG or any other with patented data developed HERE...they can only produce it & make money on production, so that CEP2 gives a cheaper solar panels to all human kind! that is what CEP2 is for - affordable research...  How would you ever know if any such standards were ever breached? How would you assess a penalty? Would the chilling effect of a threatened penalty force researchers to avoid WCG? It's nice to have ethical stds but they aren't worth much if they can't be enforced. And if their mere existence ends up being counterproductive, do you really want to have them? that is why I speak about PATENTS...if they r breached, then a court room has to settle for breach of patents! though, they can be FREE of charge - like Elon Musk has made some of their patents available for all car industry!  Twilyth, if all external researchers who have any influence on how the WCG affiliated projects are run, had been required to list all their professional contacts with different corporations and it later came out that they had "forgotten" to name certain companies, they would have been professionally shamed -- without any legal ramifications for WCG. The administrators of the grid would simply have updated the researchers' public PDFs and added the new companies into the their contact lists. Then they would have publicly stated that the WCG affiliated research teams were not allowed to collaborate with these external researchers for, let's say 2 weeks, because they had submitted incomplete lists. This is basic administration, but also moral sanitation. The result of this would have been a professional shaming. The consequence of similar actions today, without these PDFs, are none. What's worse, we'll never know which companies are employing these researchers since there are absolutely no requirements to divulge this kind of information. Yes, I do want WCG to establish a moral baseline and it doesn't have to cover all eventualities. Any would do. Is my request completely unreasonable? Theodolite, I'm merely stating an opinion. This is the suggestion forum and its purpose is to give suggestions to the WCG administrators. But thanks for the legal reminder. Sgt.Joe, does allowing a few corner cutting multinational corporations to externalize their research budgets to gullible, altruistic individuals, while diverting the saved money to their own shareholders and bonus-levered CEOs, sit well with you? This is what happens if some corporations get information ahead of publication. "Professional shame" is a yesterday news...we'd be like a crazy man on a square talking about government & aliens - metaphor! what WCG needs is to make a clear rules - if some of their research is leaked in a patent which is used for profit -> whole Uni or Institute should be banned from using WCG again with clear publication in media! so that we not only make "shame" to researcher & company, but to Uni & Institute as well...it's upon Uni & Institute to regulate it's scientists which work there...after all, they give them paycheck! ---------------------------------------- [Edit 3 times, last edit by KLiK at Sep 16, 2015 6:28:43 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Twilyth, my main concern is that WCG has no ethical guidelines whatsoever.
Even if it's not possible to prevent a data breach, which I never claimed it was, there is the psychological effect, which is my main point. Most people want to keep their word and if they sign this type of agreement they'll most likely try to honor it. And those that have no intention of honoring it will always be risking a future Wikileaks or Sonyleaks type of event, where their communication with the unlisted companies becomes exposed. That would damage them professionally and would therefore encourage better moral values. Today they are not risking anything. Also, we crunchers would be better informed when we decide which projects, if any, we want to support. Unfortunately, I believe most, if not all, researchers see absolutely no problem with sharing data with commercial interest groups ahead of publication. Go ahead, ask them. They have zero understanding for my point of view, and chances are WCG shares their way of thinking. This has similarities to discussions held fifty years ago when people discussed if it should be illegal to engage in insider trading. Nobody thinks that's ok today. Let's not forget that these researchers, internal and external, all came to WCG for a free lunch. Are you telling me that WCG doesn't have the right to ask them to wash their hands before they sit down at the table? They do not decide what the rules of the house should be. WCG does. If they don't like it, they can buy compute time at AWS. I'm going to bed now. Any unanswered comments won't mean that I've changed my mind regarding this. |
||
|
|
cowtipperbs
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Aug 24, 2009 Post Count: 78 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Could the wording you are looking for is the "Project Hosting Agreement" which each project has to sign with WCG in which is housed by IBM.
----------------------------------------From http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/bg/rfp.pdf Once the acceptance is mutual, World Community Grid and the research organization both sign a Project Hosting Agreement. Following the conclusion of the project, the research organization will make results produced by World Community Grid freely available to other research organizations as provided in the Project Hosting Agreement. World Community Grid will work collaboratively with research organizations to encourage public visibility and high participation in the grid project as well as wide dissemination of research findings and impact. In short I bet there is wording in the Project Housing Agreement that covers this.  [Edit 1 times, last edit by cowtipperbs at Sep 16, 2015 8:41:54 AM] |
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7581 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I worry more about the sun going nova than I worry about this issue and that won't happen for 5 billion years. I agree with deltavee and cowtiperbs.
----------------------------------------Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
KLiK, what we are doing is an approximation that in itself is not worth anything, because it's just a bunch of guesswork. Only after the experimentalist have confirmed the validity of the crunching results will there be any progress. When they try to confirm the results, they'll arrive at results that differ from the predicted ones, sometimes allot different. This means many, many costly trials end errors in the laboratories even with the predicted results derived from our crunching as a starting point.
In short, the WCG affiliated research groups have no chance of finding the molecules on their own. The pro-profit corporations are necessary both in the research phase and in the production phase. I used to think like you before, but now I realize the ideal solution, yours, is not possible. Cowtipperbs, I can't find anything in the Project Hosting Agreement that looks like an ethical guide for individuals. It's only on an individual level naming and shaming works. |
||
|
|
twilyth
Master Cruncher US Joined: Mar 30, 2007 Post Count: 2129 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Twilyth, my main concern is that WCG has no ethical guidelines whatsoever. Even if it's not possible to prevent a data breach, which I never claimed it was, there is the psychological effect, which is my main point. Most people want to keep their word and if they sign this type of agreement they'll most likely try to honor it. And those that have no intention of honoring it will always be risking a future Wikileaks or Sonyleaks type of event, where their communication with the unlisted companies becomes exposed. That would damage them professionally and would therefore encourage better moral values. Today they are not risking anything. Also, we crunchers would be better informed when we decide which projects, if any, we want to support. Unfortunately, I believe most, if not all, researchers see absolutely no problem with sharing data with commercial interest groups ahead of publication. Go ahead, ask them. They have zero understanding for my point of view, and chances are WCG shares their way of thinking. This has similarities to discussions held fifty years ago when people discussed if it should be illegal to engage in insider trading. Nobody thinks that's ok today. Let's not forget that these researchers, internal and external, all came to WCG for a free lunch. Are you telling me that WCG doesn't have the right to ask them to wash their hands before they sit down at the table? They do not decide what the rules of the house should be. WCG does. If they don't like it, they can buy compute time at AWS. I'm going to bed now. Any unanswered comments won't mean that I've changed my mind regarding this. One of the points I was trying to make is the fact that neither the volunteers here nor WCG are in the best position to determine what sort of approach works best for achieving the goals of individual projects. Companies ally with research institutions for their mutual benefit. If giving them early access to data is part of their arrangement, then it seems to me that trying to prevent something that is std operating procedure in most of academia could have the effect of interfering with those relationships. And since such relationships are probably more valuable to researchers than their relationship with WCG, it could affect the decision to use WCG in the first place. In an perfect world, I would agree with you. Unfortunately neither of us are in a position to determine which strategy is the best for optimizing the quantity and quality of research. There is always going to be an economic component to research work and if a company is willing to pay a WCG participant for early access to that research, then in essence we are helping that participant fund its activities. As I said, this isn't what you would want to see in a perfect world, but then the world is far from being perfect. |
||
|
|
KLiK
Master Cruncher Croatia Joined: Nov 13, 2006 Post Count: 3108 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
KLiK, what we are doing is an approximation that in itself is not worth anything, because it's just a bunch of guesswork. Only after the experimentalist have confirmed the validity of the crunching results will there be any progress. When they try to confirm the results, they'll arrive at results that differ from the predicted ones, sometimes allot different. This means many, many costly trials end errors in the laboratories even with the predicted results derived from our crunching as a starting point. In short, the WCG affiliated research groups have no chance of finding the molecules on their own. The pro-profit corporations are necessary both in the research phase and in the production phase. I used to think like you before, but now I realize the ideal solution, yours, is not possible. Cowtipperbs, I can't find anything in the Project Hosting Agreement that looks like an ethical guide for individuals. It's only on an individual level naming and shaming works. they would still need to screen a 1 phase of results...we get them there! so yes, I do know, we do take a lot of time from their initial research... & that time - I don't want it to be "Monsanto patented"...so that that company makes money on my electric bill & my grid computing power! remember, we joined forces here for FA@h research, so we can find a "cheaper drug for the poor (in Africa)"...not to make LG rich on a "new eco solar panel"! it's OK if they make money for the shorter but more expensive 2nd stage of research & development! that is only normal... |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I don't know if there is any point continuing this discussion any longer, because it's leading nowhere. The WCG administrators have probably already read it and decided they'll do absolutely nothing about it.
----------------------------------------I'm unsure if people know that organic, as in carbon based, photovoltaic cells in solar panels, are virtually the same thing as OLEDs. LEDs are silicon based and can be found in ordinary LCD TVs, but OLEDs -- organic LEDs -- are carbon based and they are found in the new, curved OLED TVs that OLED companies are now touting as a replacement technology for TVs. If you have an efficient, carbon based, that is organic, photovoltaic cell, you automatically also have an efficient, carbon based LED, OLED. They are two sides of the same coin. This is what makes the absence of ethical WCG guidelines so toxic. WCG's lax attitude toward individual researcher's concealed dual loyalties is sickening. If WCG doesn't want to ban dual loyalties, which I'm not even suggesting, they could at least demand that the researchers are open about this. Instead WCG chooses silence, while the researchers themselves throw dust in our eyes by constantly repeating the mantra that the CEP2 database is open for everybody. Yes, it's open for everybody, but equal access doesn't ensure simultaneous access -- nor does it ensure equal influence over which molecules the volunteers should crunch next. How come such a moderate request, such as the one I wrote in this thread's first comment -- which is also so morally self-evident -- is treated with silence? Does WCG regard professional transparency as a threat? [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Sep 20, 2015 5:37:25 PM] |
||
|
|
|