I’m liveblogging the first meeting of the new Board on Research Data and Information today and yesterday. Standard liveblogging disclaimers apply. The presentation slides are on the meeting site. Because some of the slides are online, I’ll focus on what’s not on the slides.
Review of Recent, Ongoing, and Proposed USNC/CODATA Activities
US-China bilateral discussions on data sharing
Discussions moving toward concrete projects
Paul Uhlir: There’s been some disappointment in the results. The Chinese have been saying the right thing but not doing it. They haven’t been following through on the commitments that they seem to be making. There’s been some progress in their policy related to scientific data sharing. If there’s not more at the next meeting, the consensus seems to be that we should stop.
Q: Are there Chinese scientific databases accessible to U.S. scientists online? There’s very good connectivity. Maybe the next meeting should focus on a specific instance.
A: There’s been some progress in the biomedical area.
Q: This is an academic discussion between research communities, but the issues are actually controlled by government. Seismologists want to share the data, but whatever they say is trumped by the security community. Same thing when we say we want to share geospatial data but we can’t.
A: There’s a difference when you make a written promise and they don’t follow through.
Q: But discussions among the research community will have limitations.
Balstad: What is the efficacy of a bilateral arrangement? Is it more useful to take a multilateral focus?
Q: Key is to look for where to maximize impact, not repeat work of a government agency or particular discipline.
Q: China has tried hard to make some policy — at least now China has a policy. They’ve dedicated some money but there’s still little data open. Need for individual organizations to follow the national policy.