---
# System prepended metadata

title: Untitled

---

<!--
    For the sake of everyone's sanity, please:
    
    * keep every lines <= 80 characters except for tables.
    * align table columns
    * Use a footnote for links inside paragraphs
    * Indentation should be 2 spaces. 
    
    Thanks :) 
-->

### Why I was looking for open science, without knowing it 
> [name=Samuel Burke for OSUM]

---

#### Here at OSUM we want to be part of a complete revolution in the way science is done and practised. 

But why would a group of graduate students spend time talking and developing open science resources, rather than be doing ‘actual’ science? Well because we believe that science is in trouble … and there is a solution: “open science”. But before we dive in, how might scientists-in-training find themselves in this position, thinking these things...? 



---
###### So to begin, I would like to share what drove me to start looking for *open science* – without knowing that I was looking for it, per se.

![https://unsplash.com/@grakozy](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1444703686981-a3abbc4d4fe3)

---

The following statements are a hodgepodge of personal experiences, and are un-scientific in nature. However, I suspect and believe that they are likely symptomatic of an underlying truth, and that they will resonate with many. The thoughts and conclusions are drawn from both personal experience within academia, and from reading the thoughts individuals who have lived similar experiences.

Becoming a scientist was not a plan prior to arriving at university. However, as fellow scientists (and non-scientists alike) will know, it is a path in life that is born out of an intense curiosity, a tendency to ask ‘why’.

We are very fortunate to live in a time where societies afford us the opportunity of science – to harness knowledge for the good of all; to have a career exploring, and teaching.

I *believe* that the scientific enterprise is the best way to understand the world / universe (we perhaps have not the tools for all the questions, nor wisdom to know those questions, yet). 


> I use the word *believe* with the all of the following definitions (which is important to bear in mind):
> - accept as true; feel sure of the truth of - almost as if faith
> - hold as an opinion; think or suppose
> - have seen enough evidence to feel that it is an evidence-based position to hold

#### However, to put it bluntly, I am disappointed.

The story of how science works; what we as a community tell and teach one another, as well as tell the rest of society, is a far cry from the  reality.

These ideas revolve around the idea of science, and what most people — non-scientists and scientists alike — understand it to mean, compared to what it is in practice.

A definition I feel is hard to dispute:
>***Science** is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.*
> [- Wikipedia/Science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)
> [color=#21a89d]

Perhaps it's naive to think that this is truly implementable, but one would be too cynical not to truly aspire for this to happen.

---

This is what it really feels like ... 

![I saw this first in the thesis defence of https://twitter.com/dhimmel, but can not find an original source?](https://i.imgur.com/X7oKh8i.png)

#### This is a shame.

Two core issues exist in science. The robustness and reliability of claims made in the literature, and the way we train scientists. 

You don’t really get trained, as you might think, knowing what the word training actually means. In reality, many will experience just a passive apprenticeship where you are not really guided on anything, finding oneself re-inventing the wheel, over and over again. 


#### We can do better.  

All of this having been said, it is easy to poke holes in things. And despite these critiques, we have achieved great things so far. But that doesn't mean we can not do much better, and by taking an honest, hard, introspective look at the current state of science, we can improve.

I believe that "open science" – a loose and broad umbrella term – is a philosophy, and way of practicing science, that offers solutions to many of the problems we see in science. And to proselytize further, offers solutions to many of the most complex problems we are striving to fix in all walks of society.

If any of these ideas ring true, I invite you to consider open science (and all that it can / could be) as an antidote. 

**The problem we are trying to solve**

> Within our Canadian and Quebec scientific community we notice several of the common themes that bring scientists to open science. And, despite several governmental and institutional open science roadmaps here in Canada and Quebec, there is no clear pathway to understand why, nor how to do, open science. This especially true at the level of the individual, whether beginner researcher, established PI, or administrator.