Hey @Juliencolomb thanks for the comments
question: in the talk @jarancio says OH is “quite new” and therefore not so easy to include in Open science policies.
This is really interesting, because I think it is about labels, agreements and building a movement. If you think of the practice of sharing the designs of science instruments then yes! It’s really old. Even in this community most people were doing open hardware before it was even named as “open science hardware”, calling it open labware, open science instruments and other names.
So the practice has been there for a long time but the concept the community generated consensus around is quite recent (even the OSHWA definition is from 2010 but GOSH one is from 2016). And that work does make a huge difference in terms of changing the system/policies. What I see from my own research is that the organising, mobilisation of resources and narratives created around “open science hardware” wouldn’t have been this successful (e.g. make it into the UNESCO recommendation in less than 5 years) without the earlier wins of the open data and access movements. And when you look at the policy discussion, which is led by open access to data and publications, effectively most people don’t understand why open hardware is there.
I am not that sure, I think open hardware is as old as open data(?), but it is much more difficult to define, it is much more complex to reuse, and ask much more time to document. The benefit over cost ratio for the researcher is not that good. It also does not touch all disciplines.
Agree with these challenges but I don’t think the mechanics of implementing open science hardware are the only reason why it’s difficult for it to get into policy. I think there are other more fundamental misalignments. One being that hardware forces you to consider the outside world/context for real (such as supply chains) and that’s hard for policies that often consider science as monolithic. Another misalignment is that open hardware forces you to consider instruments are also science. And this is far from science policy today, for which hardware is not even a variable. Some hints of this can be found in the way universities treat e.g. lab technicians (as an example of people working with instruments), or how in some fields working with instruments is less sexy in terms of career than theoretical research.
Anyway I wrote too much but happy to keep discussing!