They just check for the proper Hardware and software licenses and make sure they are properly documented, I would imagine enforcing them would be a totally different ball game
@Sophi Kravitz I was asking this having the reliability aspect in mind (which was answered before) - in the sense that building trust and quality feeling with your users may be difficult.. but it is essential.
do any of you feel @Lex Kravitz @Ashwin K Whitchurch @Laura Cox @Sanworks that reliablity is more questioned because your product is open source or because you're doing research with open source hardware?
@kelu124 I agree completely! I think it's going to be difficult for a 3rd party to certify that a device works as it should or produces reliable data. I've found that kind of feedback comes from users trying the devices
I feel, after my discussion with a few people in science, they're unable to visualize how a $20000 pieces of equipment can be replaced with something that costs $200
maybe you should put a higher price tag on it @Ashwin K Whitchurch ?
@Sophi Kravitz That would definitely work !
@Laura Cox by chance, is the low-level communication to the lab-bots' positioning systems in standard g-code?
@Sophi Kravitz I have met people who just won't use anything that's not one specific brand, because they are stuck in their ways. There is a lot of this in science, but I haven't met people who criticize something for being open-source, or hand-made
Next question is from @Shah Selbe : Curious about any mechanisms or ideas around bringing open science hardware and citizen science into more mainstream science and get rid of the stigma associated with it. Particularly around calibration and data verification/validation...
Seems like everyone is interested in calibration!
@Ashwin K Whitchurch I have the same issue with pricing.. even when lab suppliers sell something in 1000s$, and you come up with something in 100s, they wonder about reliability..
@kelu124 yes, but i may be generalizing the problem too much, but this is true of most research labs
I guess the reliability, calibration, price and patents issues are all related
@Lex Kravitz thought re sterilization... what about using materials that are oligodynamic, that self-sterilize their surfaces by e.g. silver or copper ions? (also, how to assess the effect of such materials, e.g. brass- or copper-filled printing filament?)
@Shah Selbe I think websites like this, Github, etc are doing a lot to remove the stigma around citizen science. I find scientific journals to be inadequate for documenting and disseminating hardware - it's just not a great format for describing code and devices. So we're using Hackaday.io to document projects. I think this becomes a mechanism for driving interaction between communities that otherwise don't interact much. It would be great to think of ways to foster/engineer more formal interactions too.
Good question! @Sophi Kravitz We basically utilize data to show reliability like any other company. For our pipetting robot we have extensively tested our hardware and found it to have a lifetime of heavy use to be ~ 4 years without needing extensive maintenance. Our positioning system's accuracy can be seen both by the hardware we use (which is opensource) and users can re-calibrate any time they would like very easily. As for our pipettes, we created a whitepaper so users can see the accuracy as well as test out the exact same protocol on their own.
Sophi Kravitz: Thanks for all the great responses...
Read more »