| 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 |
|
|
KLiK
Master Cruncher Croatia Joined: Nov 13, 2006 Post Count: 3108 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
KLiK, which page are you trying to link to in the first Bloomberg link? If true, I agree, this is ended cause for yet more concern. I wonder how much more lays hidden under the surface, invisible to the volunteer crunchers? No wonder WCG doesn't want to force the researchers to publicly list all their commercial links, even though they easily could have done so. The problem seems to be endemic. We have barely scratched the surface and we can already determine the infection is widespread. Only WCG and IBM know how deep it goes. I'm not paying any attention to the few people in this thread who only want to bury the irregularities in a discussion about details. Lawyers -- even former lawyers, such as Twilyth -- like these sort of tricks, where a serious problem is swamped in a discussion about comma placement. Transparency doesn't have to be motivated, unless you have something to hide -- especially when you're asking people to donate their money, which is what we are being asked to do when we spend money on computer related electricity bills. We -- a very small minority of crunchers -- suspect the researchers have commercial links, yes. The overwhelming majority of crunchers pretty much assume WCG weeds out these type of connections. They don't. We don't know how many commercial links there are and what kind of links. How intricate is the web and which corporations have spun it? WCG is still silent on the matter. However, it's important to point out that none of these researcher or corporations have done anything illegal. They haven't even done anything immoral, since WCG has absolutely no requirements for these type of disclosures. They don't owe us anything. WCG does. I don't think WCG has done enough to inform the would-be crunchers of the commercial involvements in these projects. If at all. hopefully this thread would awaken some in WCG & make sure that our donation is "for all of human kind"...like I said before: - we DO mind if someone patents a molecule for cure or electricity (CEP2) which have been found here by donation! - we DON'T mind if someone patents "a process of making that molecule" found in donated research - true investment of R&D that way a 1st stage of research is done quickly, but also ('cause of our donation of time & money) is made for cost of 0 currency (cheaper)! so all of human kind can benefit from these research... which some of us don't think is so in these cases!?  what we actually try to prevent is something like Monsanto tried to did, patenting old natural seeds to gain money: - http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-tries-patent-natural-non-gmo-tomatoes/ - http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/06/02/monsan...mo-tomatoes/#.VgOXcVUrJaQ preventing someone patents this molecules we develop from our donations...  |
||
|
|
noderaser
Senior Cruncher United States Joined: Jun 6, 2006 Post Count: 297 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
FA@h research, main prof. Arthur J. Olson Ph.D.: - affiliations on board members: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/priv...ship.asp?personId=6224009 - Sapient Discovery, LLC - link: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/priv...ot.asp?privcapId=52902206 A scientist serving on an advisory board is not exactly what I would call an "intricate web of commercial interest groups that have spun up around these projects". I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who are called on by companies to contribute their expertise in guiding the path of their activities. I would even expect that some companies have direct partnerships with universities and other research organizations, to sponsor research and maybe even recruit promising new individuals into their organizations. Furthermore, all of these commercial interests have been around long before BOINC, WCG, or even computers. Was your emboldened text to assert that we're directly doing the computation for this company? I think that's a bit of a stretch. The fact that this company's function has some parallels with the FAAH project is not a huge area of concern for me--in fact, it makes a bit of sense. After all, wouldn't Dr. Olson's experiences in bioinformatics with the FAAH project make him an excellent person to provide guidance for a company providing those same kinds of services? I can understand that you're trying to separate corporate interests from the world of non-profit/academic scientific development and progress. But, I think that enforcing such a separation would kill off that part of science. It's no mystery that universities and non-profits rely on donations or funding from a parent organization, and that their budgets and pay-scales can be rather meager at times. Prohibiting scientists from coming back across a "line" from corporate to benevolent organizations would leave nobody in the non-profit lab, other than students and the occasional crusty old PhD who couldn't make it anywhere else. If we get too heavy-handed on the requirements for adding projects to WCG, are we going to scare some off? New projects aren't added at a very fast pace as it is. Any of these organizations could create their own project without WCG's help, though they likely chose them because of the technical infrastructure, assistance, and an established base of contributors. But, I also trust WCG and IBM to make the right decisions about the projects they choose to host, because they have their reputations and the continued success of the project at stake. And, lastly, WCG is (unfortunately) not overly receptive to requests from contributors asking for basic web changes. Do you really think they're going to totally change their process for accepting new projects, bringing in extra layers of scrutiny, paperwork, lawyers, and administrative hassle? |
||
|
|
twilyth
Master Cruncher US Joined: Mar 30, 2007 Post Count: 2129 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Excellent points.
----------------------------------------The naiveté of people criticizing a process they don't understand is adorable - or at least it might be if they were 10 years old. I wonder if they know the truth about Santa and the Tooth Fairy as well. But for argument's sake, let's assume the worst. Let's say that every research group involved with WCG is in bed with Big . . . IDK . . . Big Data? Big Pharma? OK. Do even the conspiracy theorists think that this is a one way street? IOW, if the researchers are providing something of value, does anyone actually believe that they're doing it for free? Well, maybe some do but I think the answer for most will be 'of course not.' So in essence, the real import of such an accusation is that researchers get money from business by virtue of the work they do using WCG. I think that's a win-win. In fact, it's much more of a win for the researchers than their sponsors since the data is public domain anyway. The issue of who gets it first is irrelevant since nothing can be directly patented. The most the corp. sponsor gets is a nominal head start. Given the years and sometimes decades it takes to develop a new drug or technology, not to mention the billions in cost, any advance access it insignificant at best. What corporate interests are really paying for is the expertise of the researchers. Almost every researcher good enough to have his or her own lab can double or triple their salary with consulting gigs - assuming that they aren't already spending all of their time writing grant applications. So having a reliable source of funding is infinitely more valuable than a relationship with WCG. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't the reason that WCG doesn't get more projects. Of course since the staff here would never tell us anything like that, even in abstract, we're forced to guess.   |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Dear fellow crunchers,
for now, I do not want to contribute much to this issue. But I do want to express my support to the idea in general. The guidelines are a good thing and they should become real. All the best MS |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Just to clarify, according to KLiK's Bloomberg link, Arthur J. Olson is the second WCG affiliated researcher -- that we know of -- who has a seat on at least one science advisory board in a for-profit company.
"Dr. Arthur J. Olson, Ph.D. serves as Anderson Research Chair in the Department of Molecular Biology of The Scripps Research Institute and is its Professor in Department of Molecular Biology. Dr. Olson serves as Director of the Molecular Graphics Laboratory of The Scripps Research Institute. Dr. Olson's research centers around the development and application of computational and computer graphic methodology to the study of biological macromolecules. Dr. Olson's focus is on the analysis and prediction of protein-protein and substrate-protein interactions, especially as they relate to the design of bioactive agents. Dr. Olson serves as a Member of Scientific Advisory Board of Sapient Discovery, LLC. Dr. Olson also serves on the editorial boards for the Journal of Computers and Chemistry and the Journal of Molecular Graphics. Dr. Olson served as a Member of Scientific Advisory Board of Cengent Therapeutics Inc. Dr. Olson serves on a number of advisory panels, including the San Diego Supercomputer Center Steering Committee, the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center Biomedical Advisory Committee, the Executive Committee of the Molecular Graphics & Modeling Society of the Americas, and The Scripps Research Institute Council of Staff." Why was this not disclosed on the OET and FAAH projects' research information pages, since he is involved in both projects? If Bloomberg can have this information so could and should WCG. If nothing else, WCG could have asked him:  Dear Mr. Olsen, you have been enjoying our free computing resources for many, many years now. Could you perhaps be so benevolent to step down from your high dwellings among the clouds and enlighten us as to which for-profit interests you receive financial compensation from? Please, we know you're a busy and very, very important scientist, but if you do, we'll promise to donate to you gigawatts of electricity, worth millions of dollars -- every month! If that's not enough, perhaps we also can kiss your feet? You know, to sweeten the deal ...If we read the quoted text, we'll see that not all boards are equal. Serving on an editorial board of a journal does not mean there's any potential conflict of interest. What about a for-profit LLC with the word "Discovery" in its name? Just asking ... Any of these organizations could create their own project without WCG's help, though they likely chose them because of the technical infrastructure, assistance, and an established base of contributors. No, they couldn't. CEP2 is a multibillion dollar project we're participating in. Every month we are contributing electricity worth many millions of dollars. Money they don't have to pay -- and I'm not even mentioning the capital depreciation of the hardware, which, when it comes to computers, is brutal. The reason corporations are not doing this, is because of the massive amount of calculations that need to be done while the value of the outcome is highly speculative. You people, who have volunteered to become spokespersons for the corporations, are rehashing the same arguments over and over, but never answering the question I've been asking over and over: what is wrong with transparency and why do you oppose it -- especially when the researchers are asking us to donate our money? KLiK, again, I don't mind if corporations patent molecules derived from our crunching, regardless if it's in the research field of medicine or carbon based photovoltaic cells -- because it can't be avoided. The WCG affiliated nonprofit labs simply don't have the resources to do the job on their own, since there are so many, many ...many different molecule combinations that need to be created in the laboratories, which is a slow and expensive process, before they truly now if the predicted crunching result for a specific molecule is anywhere near the real world values. If you can't accept this you should maybe consider diverting this hobby of ours, crunching, into fields like astronomy or subatomic research, such as LHC. These fields are far removed from any near-term possibilities of monetization. But I do mind if for-profit organizations get access to prepublished crunching results, or advice based on those results, and take advantage of that. We simply can't know if this is happening as long as the researchers also are moonlighting for the corporations. I'm not saying they can't do that anymore, I'm just saying it should be publicly stated on WCG's science information pages so that crunchers can decide on their own if they're willing to take that risk. This is not the case today. We are crunching blind. Instead WCG is highlighting all the researchers' nonprofit activities while intentionally ignoring their for-profit activities. Why? Now, listen to WCG's and IBM's silence ... |
||
|
|
KLiK
Master Cruncher Croatia Joined: Nov 13, 2006 Post Count: 3108 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
FA@h research, main prof. Arthur J. Olson Ph.D.: - affiliations on board members: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/priv...ship.asp?personId=6224009 - Sapient Discovery, LLC - link: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/priv...ot.asp?privcapId=52902206 A scientist serving on an advisory board is not exactly what I would call an "intricate web of commercial interest groups that have spun up around these projects". I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who are called on by companies to contribute their expertise in guiding the path of their activities. I would even expect that some companies have direct partnerships with universities and other research organizations, to sponsor research and maybe even recruit promising new individuals into their organizations. Furthermore, all of these commercial interests have been around long before BOINC, WCG, or even computers. Was your emboldened text to assert that we're directly doing the computation for this company? I think that's a bit of a stretch. The fact that this company's function has some parallels with the FAAH project is not a huge area of concern for me--in fact, it makes a bit of sense. After all, wouldn't Dr. Olson's experiences in bioinformatics with the FAAH project make him an excellent person to provide guidance for a company providing those same kinds of services? (1) I can understand that you're trying to separate corporate interests from the world of non-profit/academic scientific development and progress. But, I think that enforcing such a separation would kill off that part of science. It's no mystery that universities and non-profits rely on donations or funding from a parent organization, and that their budgets and pay-scales can be rather meager at times. Prohibiting scientists from coming back across a "line" from corporate to benevolent organizations would leave nobody in the non-profit lab, other than students and the occasional crusty old PhD who couldn't make it anywhere else. (2) If we get too heavy-handed on the requirements for adding projects to WCG, are we going to scare some off? New projects aren't added at a very fast pace as it is. Any of these organizations could create their own project without WCG's help, though they likely chose them because of the technical infrastructure, assistance, and an established base of contributors. (3) But, I also trust WCG and IBM to make the right decisions about the projects they choose to host, because they have their reputations and the continued success of the project at stake. And, lastly, WCG is (unfortunately) not overly receptive to requests from contributors asking for basic web changes. Do you really think they're going to totally change their process for accepting new projects, bringing in extra layers of scrutiny, paperwork, lawyers, and administrative hassle? (4) so, here are just some answers: (1) So, lets hear from dr Olson that his job @ Sapient Discovery, LLC is not involved with AIDS/HIV, Ebola, Lassa or any other type of virus...oh, yes - we haven't heard from him, or any from the WCG/IBM! like that song from S&G Sound of Silence! (2) I'm not prohibiting anything & would not go that far...just not want 2 be a "jackass of myself", donating so much for electric bill & computers - when somebody uses exactly that for his paycheck! OK? once more: I do mind if some corp patents a molecule we find here FOR FREE, but don't mind if that corp uses knowledge from this molecule & finds a way of" producing" that molecule as a patent, putting it on tests & market...in a way a company gets paid for what it has done, not gotten FOR FREE...that's d way 2 make cures cheaper in d future & affordable 2 all countries around d World! (3) No, all those orgs or corps can make their own project using BOINC (which is FREE) & announce that they will PAY for your calculations, like a servers are also paid for...many of us will donate a fraction or whole our grids for a little compensation & get some invested money back! Also, hopefully Gridcoin has white-listed a WCG project, so some of you can join their team & get some money in return for a CPU time spent on WCG calcs: http://www.gridcoin.us/Guides/whitelist.htm (4) Well yes, I hope so WCG can become BETTER & BETTER...& more TRANSPARENT than in past! Getting news from d scientists was a GREAT thing 2 do...now, lets go 1 more step... After all, if media digs up some of these data & does it's own "research"...imagine what would that mean for WCG & IBM, but also those scientists... So, getting projects IS GREAT...but WCG selects those projects...lets make a process of selecting a BETTER 1 for all of us! @TBMS Like I said before: I do mind if some corp patents a molecule we find here FOR FREE, but don't mind if that corp uses knowledge from this molecule & finds a way of" producing" that molecule as a patent, putting it on tests & market...in a way a company gets paid for what it has done, not gotten FOR FREE...that's d way 2 make cures cheaper in d future & affordable 2 all countries around d World! Also, 2 add more about a SIZE of our processing of data: 1. FA@h makes about 96y per day...so that is about 841k hours of work...an average (hot advanced computer, just average) consumes about 100Wh...that makes about 84,1MWh of electricity... just a donation of that electricity, as an average of 20c/h is worth almost $17 million in a whole World! 2. OET makes about 38y per d, or about 33,3MWh, worth about $6,7 million! 3. CEP2 makes almost 19xy per d, with a consumption of a more advanced PC of 150Wh, so it consumes about 24,4MWh, or worth in electricity of about $5 million! Other projects haven't been mentioned here, so they are not put to worth here...but bear in mind that MCM makes a 258y in a day! 258y in a day! So yes, I'm interested in all those numbers...aren't you? Many of us donate to those projects OUR MONEY for electricity...& our computers FOR FREE...so yes, I do mind if those scientists get money out of those molecules, making is ALL just a bunch of "donations JACKASSes (donkeys)"! (well I don't mind be called a horse...been so much time in real life...but after all a horse is a noble mammal!)  ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by KLiK at Sep 27, 2015 1:33:50 PM] |
||
|
|
theodolite
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Apr 11, 2014 Post Count: 119 Status: Offline |
I resent the continuation of this conspiracy theory
The original assumption of WCG was that we were donating spare cpu cycles. Users building their own farms does not therefore allow them to claim a financial investment in WCG. You don't get to demand the community reimburse you for composting your waste. Any user, especially KLIK, has the ability to withdraw their participation. Demanding changes because you participate is bassackwards. This is a scientist-driven project not a user-driven project. Plus, who do you think you are to be telling me to withdraw because you have no proof of wrong doing? Making statements that appear libelous, which infer nefarious intent by scientists and consultants, statements made with no factual examples of wrongdoing, is wrong in so many dimensions. It's not right to disparage people you don't even know. While the original premise is that results are to remain in the public domain is very important, in the end we are still discovering scientific breakthroughs that cannot be discovered without the power of WCG. Maybe we are being deceived. I choose to believe we are not, but in the end I don't care. There are many, many, many aspects of my life that are FAR more important than WCG. Sure, I'd miss the work, but my life would not be over. So participate if you wish, or not; believe in the scientific method or not; donate excess cpu cycles otherwise wasted or not; support the work of WCG or not; provide feedback to improve WCG or stay silent; compliment the WCG staff and Techs or not. Lots of choices. But in the end, you don't get to set policy; you don't get to choose the projects; you don't get to decide how the results are used. We barely get changes to the website. You don't get to set EOP date. You are in or out. |
||
|
|
twilyth
Master Cruncher US Joined: Mar 30, 2007 Post Count: 2129 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I agree completely.
----------------------------------------I'm not always enamored of the way WCG/IBM handle things here. I've been an outspoken critic of them on more occasions than I can even remember. But the idea that there should be additional regulations just because the POSSIBILITY of unspecified, nefarious activity is alleged is simply absurd - especially coming from people who have no background in either academia or scientific research. It would be like letting a child tell you how to invest your money. 'Put all your money into Yu Gi Oh trading cards dad.' Having been frustrated numerous times in the past by WCG's attitudes and responses (or lack of same), I'm still here because I believe in the work being done, not because I have any particular love for WCG or the people who run it. Therefore I'm the last person to tell someone 'if you don't like it, leave.' But if this is really that much of an issue for you, you don't belong here. If you really believe that WCG is contributing to the subversion of the integrity of scientific research then continuing to contribute should be fundamentally inconsistent with your ethical stance and you need to act on that. |
||
|
|
KLiK
Master Cruncher Croatia Joined: Nov 13, 2006 Post Count: 3108 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I resent the continuation of this conspiracy theory The original assumption of WCG was that we were donating spare cpu cycles. Users building their own farms does not therefore allow them to claim a financial investment in WCG. You don't get to demand the community reimburse you for composting your waste. Any user, especially KLIK, has the ability to withdraw their participation. Demanding changes because you participate is bassackwards. This is a scientist-driven project not a user-driven project. Plus, who do you think you are to be telling me to withdraw because you have no proof of wrong doing? Making statements that appear libelous, which infer nefarious intent by scientists and consultants, statements made with no factual examples of wrongdoing, is wrong in so many dimensions. It's not right to disparage people you don't even know. While the original premise is that results are to remain in the public domain is very important, in the end we are still discovering scientific breakthroughs that cannot be discovered without the power of WCG. Maybe we are being deceived. I choose to believe we are not, but in the end I don't care. There are many, many, many aspects of my life that are FAR more important than WCG. Sure, I'd miss the work, but my life would not be over. So participate if you wish, or not; believe in the scientific method or not; donate excess cpu cycles otherwise wasted or not; support the work of WCG or not; provide feedback to improve WCG or stay silent; compliment the WCG staff and Techs or not. Lots of choices. But in the end, you don't get to set policy; you don't get to choose the projects; you don't get to decide how the results are used. We barely get changes to the website. You don't get to set EOP date. You are in or out. we r no conspiracy theorist...nor do we use their methods! what we have r a FACTS, that certain individuals r in some committees...& we just want to ask more about our donations! after all, I've pointed out how much electricity is spent World-wide on powering some of d projects! also, on WCG pages it's stated: World Community Grid powers important global research into health, poverty and sustainability. We carefully select cutting-edge research projects that benefit public or non-profit organizations, and we support open science by contributing every bit of data back into the public domain. With our focus on health, sustainability and poverty, World Community Grid is dedicated to meaningful projects that make a big difference to humanity. Here are some examples from over 20 powered by World Community Grid to date: so if there's a hit about some molecules getting into private/corp patents - that means WCG was laying on their pages to get more people into donating computers for different organisations or corporations! I still hope WCG didn't do that, we can't rule out d possibility, can we? so what does it cost us 2 be a more careful in future? does that cost u some money? does it bothers u that somethings u donate gets people some wealth? maybe if u want to be a "guinea pig" or a "donkey" with a short stick in your hand - it's ur choice! but as I do donate "money in a form of electricity & hardware equipment", I do hope WCG can make sure that that money becomes a "public knowledge" - like it's stated in memorandum of WCG... u want more proof? image a press leaks this topic...got a good head start from it...& in a week time a big article is put in newspapers...doesn't have to be sthg like Pelican brief, but then again - it might?! as u stated in your post - u don't care...but I DO CARE! why? I do care about WCG image...I do care about IBMs image, even though I don't own shares & I'm not employed directly or indirectly by IBM...I do care about a "decent scientists & research" which don't get to come to WCG, but some other can & (maybe) do that for their own pocket...hopefully they don't do it - but we haven't heard a single statement from them or team leaders in CEP2 or FA@h (SRI)...  I do care in this World, to become a better place...maybe u don't, but some of us DO! & that is a World without borders, without races & without crime/frauds! & btw, I don't choose which project do we run here, WCG does...I'm in fact saying to WCG that they should be MORE careful about selecting some future projects! & yes, I don't get to set EOP date...though I was trying to make some effort among TOP CONTRIBUTORS to join in & DISCUSS how we would approach EOP...no-one was in charge of that topic, most of them didn't bother from TOP CONTRIBUTORS to even say something - that says more about YOU, than me! in d END, I'm still here...& will be here for some time... but only making contributions to d "clean & transparent research projects"! |
||
|
|
twilyth
Master Cruncher US Joined: Mar 30, 2007 Post Count: 2129 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
To get an idea of how simplistic and misdirected your complaints are, read the following article in JAMA.
----------------------------------------Confluence, Not Conflict of Interest First, the term conflict of interest is pejorative. It is confrontational and presumptive of inappropriate behavior. Rather, the focus should be on the objective, which is to align secondary interests with the primary objective of the endeavor—to benefit patients and society—in a way that minimizes the risk of bias. A better term—indicative of the objective—would be confluence of interest, implying an alignment of primary and secondary interests. In this regard, the individuals and entities liable to bias extend far beyond the investigator and the sponsor; they include departments, research institutes, and universities. The potential for bias also extends to nonprofit funders, such as the National Institutes of Health and foundations, as well as to journals that might, for example, generate advertising revenue from sponsors. [Edit 1 times, last edit by twilyth at Sep 27, 2015 11:47:44 PM] |
||
|
|
|