论文标题
(神经)科学的分散基础设施
Decentralized Infrastructure for (Neuro)science
论文作者
论文摘要
科学中最紧迫的问题既不是经验,也不是理论上的,而是基础设施。科学实践是由共同的,相互加强的基础设施缺陷和激励系统所定义的,这些缺陷和激励系统在任何地方都限制和扭曲了我们对利润和声望的好奇艺术。我们的基础设施问题并不是科学独有的,而是反映了更广泛的数字封闭逻辑,在该逻辑上,平台化对信息生产和提取的控制促进了世界上一些最大的公司。我从数十年来的数十年来的数字文化中吸取了教训,例如维基斯,海盗和图书馆员等学术界,以草拟科学和社会的更多解放基础设施。基于对等点链接数据的系统,我为共享数据,工具和知识的可互操作系统绘制映射到平台捕获的三个域:存储,计算和通信。基础设施的挑战不仅是技术的,而是社会和文化的挑战,因此我试图在组织和维护它的伦理学中扎根实践发展的蓝图。我打算将此草案作为组织的集会呼吁,并通过合作者的意见以及其实施所带来的挑战进行修订。我认为,科学的更加解放的未来既不是乌托邦式的也不是不切实际的 - 真正不切实际的选择是继续组织科学,因为声望田园的声望构成了不足的劳动金字塔计划,随着我们工作的每个部分都通过盘旋信息吞噬了整个工作。可以说,科学家正在寻找一种更好的交流方式,这首先创造了像互联网一样激进的东西,我相信我们可以再次做到这一点。
The most pressing problems in science are neither empirical nor theoretical, but infrastructural. Scientific practice is defined by coproductive, mutually reinforcing infrastructural deficits and incentive systems that everywhere constrain and contort our art of curiosity in service of profit and prestige. Our infrastructural problems are not unique to science, but reflective of the broader logic of digital enclosure where platformatized control of information production and extraction fuels some of the largest corporations in the world. I have taken lessons learned from decades of intertwined digital cultures within and beyond academia like wikis, pirates, and librarians in order to draft a path towards more liberatory infrastructures for both science and society. Based on a system of peer-to-peer linked data, I sketch interoperable systems for shared data, tools, and knowledge that map onto three domains of platform capture: storage, computation and communication. The challenge of infrastructure is not solely technical, but also social and cultural, and so I attempt to ground a practical development blueprint in an ethics for organizing and maintaining it. I intend this draft as a rallying call for organization, to be revised with the input of collaborators and through the challenges posed by its implementation. I argue that a more liberatory future for science is neither utopian nor impractical -- the truly impractical choice is to continue to organize science as prestige fiefdoms resting on a pyramid scheme of underpaid labor, playing out the clock as every part of our work is swallowed whole by circling information conglomerates. It was arguably scientists looking for a better way to communicate that created something as radical as the internet in the first place, and I believe we can do it again.