No subject

that there are many ways in which the (essential) success of science
doesn't work in the same way as software. For a start, producing
scientific tools is slightly more involved than writing 'interface-
compatible' clean-room implementations of everyone's favourite UNIX
tools. And people can't be hobbyists in biotechnology in the way that
people can be hobbyists in computer programming. Also, you know how free
software can be misused -- need I talk about how biotechnology can be
misused -- don't forget the need for control over "standards of quality"
and "standards of practice" (which are generally considered "optional"
with software).

> <quote type="intro">
> Scientists anywhere in the world, including developing nations, should
> have free access to the scientific tools of modern biology and genetics,
> says an Australian geneticist.
> </quote>

Note that a...significant...portion of scientific activity occurs in
academic institutions through academics, academic students, and their
research assistants. If there is anywhere you could look to find "give-
away" information, it's probably hobbyists and academics. And academics
*have* to give away their information in order to survive, not just for
the love of it. However, this freedom of information is under increasing
threat because of the need for Universities to survive via commercial
proprietary interests, and for academics who need to obtain grants by
making "news" in the journalistic fashion. So, as part of the dream of
universally-free tools, you will want to be doing something about the
ways in which intellectual property is treated in this country (and
elsewhere).

A lot of science also has the same problem as health care -- it's
obscenely expensive. (And a lot of biotechnology is motivated by health
care or done at/with health care institutions!) Many scientists would
give away their information if they could (and as quickly as possible)
but there are many practical constraints (not least of which is
quality). The "push to free up biotech tools for all" probably becomes
more important with time. But I doubt that success of the moral
imperative for equitable access to technology could come about by trying
to independently "buck the trend" in the sense of the FSF.

> <quote>
> Tools of genetics and modern biology should be made freely available
> just as computer programming tools were shared in the open source
> software movement, he said.
> </quote>

On the topic of software tools, many *are* freely available with source
code. But the person in the article is also talking about experimental
prcesses. And access to these tools is not just about intellectual
property, it's about resources. Having the tools available for everyone
in a beneficial way entails making the intellectual property available
*and* making the resources available. E.g. publishing the specs for a US
stealth fighter jet on the Internet might sounds like a noble goal, but
it would undermine the competitive benefits of the machine without
actually making it more accessible to poor nations that didn't already
have access to it. Just talking off the top of my head.

PS. Just for interest's sake, you might like to have a look at the
history and usage of PCR (polymerase chain reaction, for replication
DNA in vitro).