Let the buyer beware!

We are working with the University of Twente to come up with a tool to measure the value systems of collaborative networks and their impact on the performance of networks. Whenever I talk to people with a scientific background they invariably ask me about the research protocols and how the research is done in a controlled environment that ensures the research can be reproduced. These are not wrong questions to ask, but they are not really applicable to what we are trying to achieve in the short run. We aim to use the results to drive innovation, improve people’s lives and - not unimportantly - provide us with a living. Considering the latter it is important for us not to be bogged down in a discussion on scientific methodology. Since our approach seems to be ‘working’, we are at this point in time less interested in why. We will put a research module, to measure results in the different value domains, into everything we do. It will provide us with an essential feedback loop, but will also ensure that we can provide a scientific basis to what we do in the long run. The research is important, but we have to apply it at the same time.

This is a trend the internet is fuelling. More and more research is being published on sites that are set up specifically for the purpose of spreading research (or is simply done through blogs) without the much praised and, according to many scientists, essential peer review. The upside is clear, the insights can be used right away (Barry Marshal admitted that their find of helicobacter pilori and it’s consequences for the treatment of peptic ulcers would not have been accepted by science any sooner, but would probably have saved hundreds of lives if the internet had been there when they made the discovery), it can be critically reviewed right away, improved by others outside the specific discipline, etc.. The down side is that there is no way of testing the validity of the research done and the information used to produce a new theory or solution.

Apart from the fact that this down side can be remedied by peer review, that is not without it’s problems either. Just look at what is happening around the cloning controversy in South Korea, the paper is still not retracted, since all authors of a paper have to agree to retract it. Another issue with peer review is the selection of peers. As in other contexts, science is put under more and more strain to produce, that means it is easier and easier to find peers who are willing to take a risk in co-authoring a new find so they can make a name for themselves. It is not that such eager scientists are deliberately being fraudulent, but cognitive dissonance does play a larger role in deciding to support certain research. It is like preaching to the choir and clearly not as transparent as throwing it on the internet, but at least there is a validation process. A process that is not in place on the internet.

Neither of these approaches to the development of knowledge is perfect, certainly not in today’s information society. Primarily because neither solves the most important issue that everybody has to face; how to make sense of the incredible amount of information the internet is offering us. Whether you are a scientist looking for new ideas or feedback on your theory, or a sales man looking for new products to sell, you get so much information on a daily basis that it has become impossible to digest. We try to do what we always do and that is filter this information. On the internet it is called search! Sure there is the emergence of tagging, but that is still in its infancy and for most internet users still unknown and in my opinion useful from an individual perspective only, not from a group perspective.

On the internet there is no certainty of having seen it with your own eyes (even in the real world there never was, but at least we ‘saw’ it with our own eyes), so we have to rely on search engines to filter the information we are looking for. I always had this problem that I couldn’t do a search on a concept itself. You always have to make a difficult formula of words, using AND, OR, etc., to get what you are looking for without too much noise.

Google has found a way out of the noise thing, it made a deal with AOL so that the top results of any search show those links that AOL will benefit from and Google will share the profits. There goes transparancy and independence in one stroke? Looks like Microsoft isn't so bad after all, they said no to this AOL proposal because they found it unethical!

How are we going to make sure we get the information we are looking for from sources we can trust? I sure hope someone will come up with a business model that excludes the kind of deals Google is making and provides us with a transparent means of finding stuff that supports our explorations and get's rid of most of the noise. The only thing left for me to say to all of you looking for information of your interest: “Let the buyer beware!”