I love Wikipedia.  I think deep down we all do.  There’s something truly amazing about accessing hordes of (useless) information simply by entering a few keystrokes in a giant search engine.  At times, Wikipedia’s better than “Googling” simply by virtue of the fact that each topic is referenced (most of the time) and peer-reviewed.  By analogy, can you imagine the quality of published work if the ACS didn’t require references in a submitted manuscript or operate a peer-reviews-type system? 

Wikipedia is great for getting an objective “big picture,” rapidly in a fairly organized format, but it has its limitations.  Do you need to know the origins of Evacuation day in Boston?  Use Wikipedia.  Do you need to know the economic impact of the 11-month British seizure of Boston?  You’re better off consulting a textbook or bugging you local history scholar. 

By contrast, my “ranking” professors largely despise search engines such as Wikipedia.  I think they frown at the ease of accessing a tool that anyone can alter for finding physical constants (i.e. the density of aniline) or understanding conceptual material (i.e. Zimmerman-Traxler transition state models).  I once heard a professor claim, “If it’s published on the internet, there’s really no way to verify if the information is true.”  In a sense, he was correct.  The internet is a terrific source for (mis)information, and Wikipedia is really no exception to this phenomenon.  Hell, my wife (trained as a chemical engineer) has witnessed physical constants change on Wikipedia on several occasions. 

Science is a largely unspoken art.  Sure, there are lectures and textbooks that “guide the way.”  However, every research scientist mines information from the stockpiles of primary literature in an effort to piece together relevant aspects of his or her project.  I imagine that if I were to search for a procedure for using SOCl₂ today (Lord knows I wouldn’t consult my PI), there are probably 49 other people in the world this week looking for a similar procedure.  This means that 50 of us will spend valuable time crawling through the literature looking for a similar ballpark procedure.  To make matters worse, on my campus, the SciFinder subscription is only available at a library where waiting for a computer is akin waiting for the Kansas City Royals to win a World Series.  A lot of these problems could be fixed with the development of a free scientific database.

I think charging several hundreds of dollars for crappy textbooks is criminal.  I also think that a scientist’s time is too valuable to be wasted crawling through primary literature looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack.  Knowledge should be available to the general public, hence libraries.  But, we live in a digital age where copious and sufficient information can be accessed with the click of a mouse.  Don’t get me wrong.  I believe in peer-reviewed publishing.  However, the organization of that information (specifically scientific) is what kills me. 

I propose the creation of a knowledge database.  In the spirit of Dan Carlin’s last podcast, I say let it be produced by the militia—by the people for the people.  You sign on.  You contribute.  You enter the associated references.  Do you need to know the side reactions of a Pictet Spengler reaction?  Maybe someone in Patrick Bailey’s group just added a reference from a recent paper last week.  Need a technique for depositing silver nanoparticles?  That would be easy to find if someone in Louis Brus’ team contributed a procedure.  Earlier this morning, a friend of mine just came by my office looking for a quick, easy way to make trityl tetrafluoroborate.  Imagine how easy it would’ve been for him to access a free database that references 50 different procedures (BTW, his group has complete access to SciFinder outside of the library).  Don’t feel left out you biologists out in Internet-land.  You could have access to PCR techniques, free sequencing software, and even references to protein crystal structures.

My argument is this: there is so much useful information that needs to be organized in a format that is free, navigational and easy to access.  One person cannot do it alone; we all need to contribute for the betterment of science, in general.  I envision a hybrid of Doug Taber’s Organic Chemistry Portal, Wikipedia and a condensed version of SciFinder.  I’ll gladly contribute!  How do we get the ball rolling?

The Paper

The Party

The cheese is strong with this one.

Update: Also covered by Will. SciFinder on YouTube? Absurd.

Mitch