Neuroscience data and tool sharing

The requirements for neuroinformatics to make a significant impact on neuroscience are not simply technical—the hardware, software, and protocols for collaborative research—they also include the legal and policy frameworks within which projects operate. This is not least because the creation of large collaborative scientific databases amplifies the complicated interactions between proprietary, for-profit R&D and public “open science.” In this paper, we draw on experiences from the field of genomics to examine some of the likely consequences of these interactions in neuroscience.Facilitating the widespread sharing of data and tools for neuroscientific research will accelerate the development of neuroinformatics. We propose approaches to overcome the cultural and legal barriers that have slowed these developments to date. We also draw on legal strategies employed by the Free Software community, in suggesting frame-works neuroinformatics might adopt to reinforce the role of public-science databases, and propose a mechanism for identifying and allowing “open science” uses for data whilst still permitting flexible licensing for secondary commercial research.

[1]  Piotr Wojdyllo,et al.  Wavelets, Rough Sets and Artificial Neural Networks in EEG Analysis , 1998, Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing.

[2]  Neuroimaging Databases , 2001, Science.

[3]  Yochai Benkler,et al.  Constitutional Bounds of Database Protection: The Role of Judicial Review in the Creation and Definition of Private Rights in Information , 1999 .

[4]  J. Bradford DeLong,et al.  Speculative Microeconomics for Tomorrow's Economy , 2000, First Monday.

[5]  G. Knott,et al.  Formation of Dendritic Spines with GABAergic Synapses Induced by Whisker Stimulation in Adult Mice , 2002, Neuron.

[6]  R. Eckhorn,et al.  Single neurons are differently involved in stimulus-specific oscillations in cat visual cortex , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[7]  Jason E. Stewart,et al.  Open Source Software Meets Gene Expression , 2001, Briefings Bioinform..

[8]  B. Connors,et al.  Short-Term Plasticity of a Thalamocortical Pathway Dynamically Modulated by Behavioral State , 1996, Science.

[9]  R. Merton,et al.  The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1975, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

[10]  Ewa Kublik,et al.  Identification of principal components in cortical evoked potentials by brief surface cooling , 2001, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[11]  O D Creutzfeldt,et al.  Relations between EEG phenomena and potentials of single cortical cells. I. Evoked responses after thalamic and erpicortical stimulation. , 1966, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[12]  A. Wróbel,et al.  Spontaneous variability reveals principal components in cortical evoked potentials , 1998, Neuroreport.

[13]  A. Rai,et al.  Regulating scientific research: intellectual property rights and the norms of science. , 1999, Northwestern University law review.

[14]  Kenneth W. Dam.  Intellectual Property and the Academic Enterprise , 1999 .

[15]  A. Wróbel,et al.  Gating of the sensory activity within barrel cortex of the awake rat , 1998, Experimental Brain Research.

[16]  Paul A. David.  Will Building ‘Good Fences’ Really Make ‘Good Neighbors’ in Science? , 2001 .

[17]  Jennifer W. Kuan.  Open Source Software as Consumer Integration into Production , 2001 .

[18]  P Aldhous.  Prospect of data sharing gives brain mappers a headache. , 2000, Nature.

[19]  Christopher M. Kelty,et al.  Free Software/Free Science , 2001, First Monday.

[20]  Stephen H Koslow,et al.  Sharing primary data: a threat or asset to discovery? , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[21]  Josh Lerner,et al.  The Simple Economics of Open Source , 2000 .

[22]  E Marshall,et al.  Snipping Away at Genome Patenting , 1997, Science.

[23]  A. Wróbel,et al.  Transient changes of electrical activity in the rat barrel cortex during conditioning , 1998, Brain Research.

[24]  Ulla Ruotsalainen,et al.  Neuroinformatics: the integration of shared databases and tools towards integrative neuroscience. , 2002, Journal of integrative neuroscience.

[25]  Stéphane Mallat,et al.  Matching pursuits with time-frequency dictionaries , 1993, IEEE Trans. Signal Process..

[26]  Arti K. Rai,et al.  The Public and the Private in Biopharmaceutical Research , 2001 .

[27]  W. Singer,et al.  Role of Reticular Activation in the Modulation of Intracortical Synchronization , 1996, Science.

[28]  Piotr J. Durka,et al.  Single evoked potential reconstruction by means of wavelet transform , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[29]  Stephen H. Koslow,et al.  Should the neuroscience community make a paradigm shift to sharing primary data? , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[30]  M. Heller,et al.  Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research , 1998, Science.

[31]  I. VÁŇOVÁ,et al.  Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic , 2020, The Grants Register 2021.

[32]  Rick Kranz.  QUESTION OF BALANCE , 2000 .

[33]  Andrzej Skowron,et al.  Rough Sets: A Tutorial , 1998 .

[34]  Chris DiBona,et al.  Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution , 1999 .

[35]  Norman Kaplan,et al.  The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1974 .

[36]  Ingrid Daubechies,et al.  Ten Lectures on Wavelets , 1992 .

[37]  R. Quian Quiroga,et al.  Habituation and sensitization in rat auditory evoked potentials: a single-trial analysis with wavelet denoising , 2002 .

[38]  Piotr Wojdyllo,et al.  Neuro-wavelet classifiers for EEG signals based on rough set methods , 2001, Neurocomputing.

[39]  Andrzej Skowron,et al.  Rough-Fuzzy Hybridization: A New Trend in Decision Making , 1999 .