If the recent Darwinian celebrations have taught us anything, it’s that evolution is happening all around us. Science communication is no exception to the rule. As web communication grows, many scientists are exploring new ways of sharing knowledge and communicating ideas. Researchers are posting all aspects of the scientific process on the web, ranging from raw data to preprints of journal articles. While open access is clearly beneficial for science as a whole, the question arises: Is open science good for researchers?

The answer to this question was explored in depth at a panel presentation today at Columbia University. The panelists included Bora Zivkovic (long time blogger and online community manager for PLoS), Barry Canton (founder of Gingko BioWorks and the OpenWetWare wiki), and Jean-Claude Bradley (Associate Professor at Drexel and founder of UsefulChem).

In brief, the concepts underlying open access science are pretty straightforward: (1) All data is free and public. (2) Findings and methods can be portrayed in a variety of web-based mediums. While simple in theory, some consider this risky business. However, the consensus amongst the panel was that open science has many more advantages than fallbacks. For example, outlets like open notebook science allow individuals to depict every detail of their work on a daily basis. This can help other scientists reproduce data and master new techniques more effectively. It can even help scientists in less developed countries gain access to information they could not obtain otherwise. Additionally, preprinting work on sites like Nature Precedings allows researchers to get feedback on their ideas and findings, ultimately subjecting their work to a peer-review process before publication.

But we must be realistic about transitioning into open science. In an environment where both your livelihood and credentials are based on your publication record, getting scooped is fatal. Not all fields can risk presenting findings before publication. Rather, fields that are less competitive or require unique research environments are more amenable to open science. Thus, we must accept that the transition to open science may not be right for everyone.

Perhaps one day, when scientific funding is plentiful, open science will be a widely accepted form of academic communication. Researchers will be more likely to share findings and communicate openly with competitors. We should hope that time comes sooner rather than later. Only then can science communication really evolve.