Sophi KravitzThey 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 $200
maybe you should put a higher price tag on it @Ashwin K Whitchurch ?
@Sophi Kravitz That would definitely work !
@Laura Cox by chance, is the low-level communication to the lab-bots' positioning systems in standard g-code?
LOL!
@Sophi Kravitz I have met people who just won't use anything that's not one specific brand, because they are stuck in their ways. There is a lot of this in science, but I haven't met people who criticize something for being open-source, or hand-made
Next question is from @Shah Selbe : Curious about any mechanisms or ideas around bringing open science hardware and citizen science into more mainstream science and get rid of the stigma associated with it. Particularly around calibration and data verification/validation...
Seems like everyone is interested in calibration!
@Ashwin K Whitchurch I have the same issue with pricing.. even when lab suppliers sell something in 1000s$, 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 so far!
Next question is from @Andre Maia Chagas :Do you think, with all the open science efforts going on, that we need to make grant committees and other institutions give more attention to hardware? (I think science will only be truly open once people can actually do experiments everywhere ) It never gets mentioned by open science people
...indeed. sci journals articles are often rather skimpy about the equipment, even the one the researchers made and are writing about. and then the journals would want tens of bucks to just access the tell-you-nothing article. thank gods for sci-hub!
Similar to @Ashwin K Whitchurch we mainly find that people question our reliability because of the price tag as compared with other automated liquid handling devices
@Thomas Shaddack That's a cool idea, but I doubt the vets would find it useful. They are a bit more "checklist" about these things, but luckily there are approved protocols for sterilizing items that come in contact with mice that can't be autoclaved. So we got approval just to wipe them down with ethanol. We also can do gas sterilization if they made us do that but it's annoying so I'd much rather just wipe them down!
what about sterilization with 30% hydrogen peroxide mist? (could the ultrasound misters be useful here?)
@Laura Cox Are these people convinced by your data?
@Lex Kravitz also, could there be some materials that'd indicate by e.g. color change the presence of microorganisms? some indicator dye bound to the polymer and sensitive to some markers of their metabolism?
@Thomas Shaddack There are established gas sterilization methods - Ethylene Oxide is common in hospitals. I'm not sure if hydrogen peroxide would work.
I believe so. We certainly haven't had it negatively impact us :) We also highly encourage our customers to try out the experiment we used ourselves (photometric and gravimetric testing)
@Thomas Shaddack and @Lex Kravitz : this is very interesting indeed, researchers need to get out of the tower and due proper interaction/collaboration with non-academics. But at the same time, one needs to keep playing the publish or perish game... (until we can finally get rid of it...)
Some resources for spreading hardware in the academic setting (which you probably already know):
https://channels.plos.org/open-source-toolkit
https://openhardware.metajnl.com/about/
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/hardwarex
@Laura Cox That's great! Yeah I find many scientists can be rigid about specific brands, but ultimately they respect data. If not you probably don't want to work with them too....
ethylene oxide is... a bit too explosive for my tastes. i heard about the 30% hp as an alternative method somewhere.
Sophi Kravitz: Our last question for today is about community and is from @Mark Sporleder : I'm currently in development of an environmental iot sensor device network with market towards scientific community. Am weighing options of having devices open source hardware/software or licensed. Will likely be kits requiring assembly at lower cost and open source to a degree. Looking to build an online community for sensor data sharing while making this into a profitable small business. Any suggestions?
Yes definitely @Lex Kravitz that's why open-sourced devices and software are so important because it makes recreating experiments easier
Andre Maia Chagas: Hi @Tobias Wenzel ! Nice to see you here too!
@Mark Sporleder Wow that sounds extremely useful. I have a lot of experience in this actually as my lab has also been developing an environmental IoT device (raise your hand if you are too!). There are many pieces of commercial IoT hardware that do this sort of thing, and so I think that aspect of a system like this is solved many times over and may not need more innovation. The challenge is sharing data and getting the online community engagement. Unfortunately I don't have any advice on how to be profitable :)
Hi @Andre Maia Chagas, same here! Better late then never. I try to join #GOSH activities where I can to promote good Open Hardware documentation and publication ;-)
If you're just coming in now (hi @Tobias Wenzel !) you can catch up via transcript: https://hackaday.io/event/157820-open-hardware-for-science
@Mark Sporleder Some info on our project here, we plan to release more documentation very soon, just working on a new PCB design: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/technology-advancement-transfer/research-materials-licensing/mios-better-animal-care-better-research
Am aiming specificily to underwater in similar fashion to how openrov has built a large community with like device.
By open source am considering building kit and enclosures but having documentation so that additional sensors could be networked or wired to existing system.
In my opinion, I would put your efforts into building the community, and finding out what's missing from the commercial solutions for your target audience. I think the challenges will be in data sharing and community engagement/support, more so than building the actual devices.
I haven't heard of many underwater solutions so you may be able to provide something novel to people who need that
Would publications from institutions whom have worked with this device be a strong point for additional users or institutions to want to buy it?
Thanks @Sophi Kravitz, I am trying to do just that. Short intro: I am editor in chief of the Open Access Journal 'Journal of Open Hardware' https://openhardware.metajnl.com/articles/10.5334/joh.3/ and co-founder of DocuBricks http://docubricks.com/search.jsp. I am also a scientist and build many open projects myself.
nice to meet you!
I believe so - scientists like to see peer reviewed publications, so it can be a boost if your device is being used in these
This taps into the community engagement as well - if you create something and someone learns something useful with it, it's likely that others may want to replicate their work or use the device for other experiments.
hi @Tobias Wenzel, glad to see you there. Would be good to see some hackaday science projects in the Journal of Open Hardware!
@Tobias Wenzel Hi! Nice to meet you!
This chat is officially over in a few minutes, everyone should hang out and keep talking though! To catch up if you're just getting here, there's a transcript posted: https://hackaday.io/event/157820-open-hardware-for-science
@Lex Kravitz - I confirm that peer review publication helps with sharing open science projects, thanks to @Tobias Wenzel that help for a ultrasound module kit.
Hackaday has just launched a Journal as well: https://hackaday.io/project/28128-hackaday-journal-of-what-you-dont-know
@Mark Sporleder and @Lex Kravitz I would also suggest to look for people who are already doing IoT, environment and sensors, even if its not underwater, join forces, you bring a new environment, they bring the community, everyone wins because it is another good open source tool.
has anyone worked with patenting their device before publicly releasing it?
you have to do it, once it is publicly out, you cannot patent it anymore.
Absolutely. There are a few Hackaday projects preparing manuscripts or currently submitting to the Journal of Open Hardware. I have already seen some really awesome drafts. But we would like to see much more. Why not take academic credit for the amazing work that is being done on instrumentation and models. We review the documentations also to make sure it is really actionable for other readers/scientists.
plus, maybe this is the wrong audience to ask? considering the whole "open hardware for science motto"? :P
@Andre Maia Chagas Good point. Have very long list of contacts am looking towards networking and joining forces with.
@mark spor
@Tobias Wenzel can we connect on email? sophi@hackaday.com
@Mark Sporleder Publications are an alternative route to protect intellectual property (instead of patents). Publications are assumed public knowledge and no one else can prevent you from working and selling this published information.
@Mark Sporleder Probably you already know, but make sure to check public lab, and safecast
@Tobias Wenzel Would you consider setting up a way to submit directly from Hackaday? Like BioRXIV is doing with many journals? One challenge with publishing is that it's a lot of work to prepare a manuscript for an uncertain reward. If there was a way to know that, given sufficient quality of presentation, etc, etc, the work would be published in your journal that may drive people to submit
@Tobias Wenzel thought. perhaps as important as open hardware, or sometimes even more, could be protocols. step by step methods for testing procedures, e.g. for measuring material properties (strength, electrical properties, biocompatibility...), with easily available materials/tools.
I have to jump off. Thank you @Lex Kravitz for hosting a great chat!
@Tobias Wenzel but at the same time they don't prevent others from doing the same with the data in your publication (which I'm guessing is what Mark is looking for? some kind of protection?)
An interesting read for alternative models of business are in https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13220 which is super good read
Discussions
Become a Hackaday.io Member
Create an account to leave a comment. Already have an account? Log In.