Thank you @thenaomig for starting this discussion.
I think this is an important ‘branch’ of Pangeo that is in need of strengthening.
I appreciate that this is not the main concern of everyone in the community, but speaking for myself, democratizing the means of science is the main reason I became involved in pangeo in the first place, and to this day is my main motivator to do anything for my work.
I want to comment specifically on
- Cloud infrastructure…(esp in other parts of the world): this is a huge challenge because open infrastructure is vulnerable security-wise, not to mention funding. But also would create a huge opportunity. Potentially could have some intermediate case where a small number of people in the global south get access as a pilot - this would help to figure out what is useful.
- Interface between money-making companies like coiled/earthmover and government-funded science - potential opportunities and pitfalls
The discussion in What's Next - Cloud - Partner-managed Infrastructure - #13 by TomNicholas has really made me think about how specifically infrastructure should be used to democratize science.
In my eyes there are two end-members to how support can look like:
- Efficient, cheap, services that get donated to other stakeholders. This will (as @briannapagan points out) trade off efficiency/convenience/quick implementation with self-sufficiency. The people who receive this help will be able to conduct science, but be dependent on the charity of others far into the future.
- Support to build the same software and infrastructure in other countries, to achieve true independence to conduct science in other nations. This of course will be an enormous and long-term effort, requiring politics, collaboration and work across national boundaries.
My personal opinion is that we most certainly should employ the former (especially in the short term) but should not stop there. And not stoping there requires a conscious effort. There is probably a way to chart a way forward that allows donations of infrastructure as a transitional mechanism, but also formalizes a right to replicate, and a long term plan to research independence. But crucially I think that the way this decision progresses has to be discussed in a broder forum including:
- the people who do not have access to science tools currently (maybe folks from the mentorship could be a start?)
- folks with expertise in delivering developmental aid (which is what we are talking about?)
I am actually curious how/where/if there is something written down about the community commitment to democratizing science. I did not find a mention on the website. Maybe @paigem knows more?
I like this idea a lot
I’d like to do some “power mapping” of who we collectively know who might know how to approach funding some bigger resource pots for these efforts.
I think that in addition to the org structures named by @TomNicholas
What other models are possible? I can think of: federally-organised / philanthropically-funded / volunteer-driven as broad categories. I’m personally interested in thinking about which of these models can best serve the wider global scientific community, with diversity and inclusion as an explicit aim. We have some nascent discussion of that question in the What’s Next - Democratization - Science/Community thread that Naomi linked.
this might be in the wheelhouse of international orgs like the UN/WCRP, the IPCC, etc? I know next to nothing about these orgs, but it might be worth exploring some communications towards them. Just to maybe get us beyond the ‘federal funding’ barrier.