Sharing data and information for agricultural research

This week, the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences hosts an International Expert Consultation to build a framework for data and information sharing for agricultural research for development.

The papers for the event are all online - a good first step towards better accessibility. The papers include one prepared by the IAALD past president Barbara Hutchinson.

A large number of papers have been mobilised, including these:

A Framework for Data and Information sharing for ARD - Ajit Maru
Agricultural Information Sharing in the GAINS Experience - Joel Sam
Agricultural Knowledge Sharing in the Philippines - Mila Ramos
Building the CIARD Framework for Data and Information Sharing - Moroccan case - Ottam
Building the CIARD Framework for Data and Information Sharing - Kenya case - Richard Mugata
Building the CIARD Framework for Data and Information sharing - Papua New Guinea case - Seniorl Anzu
CIRAD contribution to scientific dissemination at institutional, national and international level - Marie-Claude Deboin
Co-learning and co-creation within knowledge exchange platform - Myra Wopereis-Pura
Crop Germplasm Resources CGR Information Sharing in China - Fangwei
Expanding Thai Agricultural Boundary of Knowledge - Lessons Learned from Thai AGRIS Centre - Aree Thunkijjanukij
Livestock Research for Rural Development - T. R. Prest
Observations on the aspects of how CABI manages and shares its information - Qiaoqiao Zhang
Persistent identifiers - Comparing schemes for their use in the CIARD Framework - Hugo Besemer
Perspective on Efforts to Share Data and Information in the Central Asia and Caucasus Region - Oleg Shatberashvili
The status of Data and Information Sharing in the Republic of Yemen - Mohamed Noman Sallam
Advanced Resaerch of sharing of basic feed composition data based on China Feed-DataBase Information Center - CFIC - Xiong Benhai
An attempt to integrate huge scientific data with interoperability in Japan - Seishi Ninomiya
Building the CIARD framework for Data and Information Sharing - Mauritius - Krishan Bheenick
CAAS information sharing and Perspectives for the framework development - Pan Shuchun
Communicating Agricultural Science and Technology - Indicators, Lessons Learned - Flaherty
Data Information Sharing in Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development â?? Vietnam - Nguyen Nghi
Knowledge as a Service for Agriculture Domain - Asanee Kawtrakul
Sharing experience in the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific - Simon Wilkinson
Holistic AGRO-ICT solutions considering also the integration of horizontal and vertical stakeholders - Walter H. Mayer
IAALDs Commitment to and Promotion of Agricultural Information Sharing and the CIARD Movement - Barbara Hutchinson
The role of the CIARD RING in the Building of the CIARD Framework for Data and Information Sharing - Valeria Pesce
Vision paper - ITPGRFA
Summary paper of the e-consultation - Tom Baker

The State of Biodiversity Information in Canada

NatureServe Canada recently released a report on the state of biodiversity information in Canada. By looking at sources of accessible data, including those of NatureServe Canada, this report reveals gaps in Canada?s information holdings.

Some highlights:

1. Canada does not have ready access to the biodiversity information needed to understand its natural heritage or assess the shared outcomes set out in Canada ’s Biodiversity Outcomes Framework.
2. Canada has significant data holdings for some taxonomic groups (e.g., birds, mammals), largely developed in response to legislative priorities or opportunistic data gathering efforts, yet, in most cases, that information is inaccessible or inconsistent.
3. Canada lacks both an understanding of its species diversity and a national inventory program designed to develop primary information for known species.
4. Canada does not have a national biomonitoring system that works across scales and builds on existing initiatives, nor the depth of interpretive expertise required to monitor ecological change. Canada needs to invest in biomonitoring and mapping (including remote-sensing and other related technologies).
5. Canada lacks investments in taxonomic expertise (capacity) and digitized data (presently held as “hard-copy” in Canadian collections). It is ill-prepared to respond to issues like species extinction potentials, invasive species, and climate change.
6. Canada needs to promote biodiversity information sharing and access, including one or more common repositories, and remove cultural and institutional barriers that keep information fragmented.
7. Canada needs to complete efforts to classify and map ecological communities (wetlands, grasslands, arctic tundra, etc.) as a complement to species data, and as a means of exploring and enhancing its understanding of Canadian ecosystems.
8. Canada ’s approach to biodiversity information management must be based on a strategy that recognizes the shared, multi-jurisdictional mandate and responsibility for biodiversity conservation.
9. Canada needs an effective national biodiversity information partnership among federal, provincial, and territorial agencies that includes non-government, academic, aboriginal groups, and the business community.
10. Institutions in other countries, in particular the United States , publish more primary information about Canadian biodiversity than Canada does.

Download the report (PDF)

USAIN 2010: Data curation workshop

Jeanne Pfander from the University of Arizona shares this report on the USAIN 2010 Data Curation Pre-Conference Workshop:

Dr. Melissa Cragin, Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois, provided a broad overview of theoretical and practical problems in the emerging field of data curation.

Cragin defines data curation as the active and on-going management of research data through its lifecycle of interest and usefulness to scholarship, science, and education. Curation activities and policies enable data discovery and retrieval, maintain data quality, and provide for re-use over time.

Workshop participants examined and discussed issues related to research processes and lifecycles, scholarly communication, research data collections, appraisal and selection, use and re-use, cost and service models.

D. Scott Brandt and Jake Carlson, both from Purdue University Libraries, co-presented the afternoon session which focused on the Data Curation Profiles project. The Data Curation Profile provides a standardized framework for gathering information about scientists’ practices, attitudes and requirements related to data management and sharing for specific research projects.

The workshop introduced the Data Curation Profile tool and employed interactive learning activities to demonstrate how the tool can enable librarians and others to make informed decisions when working with data from various research disciplines.

For more info, see: Witt, M., Carlson, J., Brandt, D.S. and Cragin, M.H. (2009) “Developing the Data Curation Profiles” International Journal of Digital Curation, 4(3), 93-103. http://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/137

http://datacurationprofiles.org

Story by Jeanne Pfander

More on the 2010 USAIN Congress

CGIAR's open access and international collaboration

On the 'biodiversity commons' mailing list: David Duthie (UNEP/DGEF) writes:

"A global biological commons in genetic resources was implemented in the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) through a system of international nurseries with a breeding hub, free sharing of germplasm, collaboration in information collection, the development of human resources, and an international collaborative network. The success of an open-source system such as that implemented by CGIAR depends primarily on key people and leadership. Derek Byerlee and Jesse Dublin share these insights in Crop improvement in the CGIAR as a global success story of open access and international collaboration published in The International Journal of the Commons.

Open-source collaboration includes (i) free distribution and redistribution of the original materials, (ii) free redistribution of materials derived from the originals, (iii) full sharing of information, including pedigrees and grain yield, disease resistance and other information relating to the materials, (iv) nondiscrimination in participation in the networks, and (v) intellectual property rights on final materials that, if used, did not prevent their further use in research.

The history and impacts of the international wheat program are discussed to illustrate the open-source system. It also highlights the challenges of maintaining and evolving such a system over the long-term."

View the article

The fourth paradigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery

This book by Microsoft Research argues that "scientific breakthroughs will be powered by advanced computing capabilities that help researchers manipulate and explore massive datasets.

The speed at which any given scientific discipline advances will depend on how well its researchers collaborate with one another, and with technologists, in areas of eScience such as databases, workflow management, visualization, and cloud computing technologies."

Read more ...

Scientific data and information increasingly interconnected

Timo Hannay in Nature's Nascent Blog:

"Scientific knowledge — indeed, all of human knowledge — is fundamentally connected ... So even as the quantity of data astonishingly balloons before us, we must not overlook an even more significant development that demands our recognition and support: that the information itself is also becoming more interconnected. One link, tag, or ID at a time, the world’s data are being joined together into a single seething mass that will give us not just one global computer, but also one global database. As befits this role, it will be vast, messy, inconsistent, and confusing. But it will also be of immeasurable value—and a lasting testament to our species and our age."

Maintaining the integrity and accessibility of research data

According to a new report by the National Academy of Science, "maintaining the integrity and accessibility of research data in a rapidly evolving digital age will take the collective efforts of universities and other research institutions, journals, agencies, and individual scientists."

The report recommends that researchers - both publicly and privately funded - make the data and methods underlying their reported results public in a timely manner, except in unusual cases where there is a compelling reason not to do so, such as concern about national security or health privacy. In such cases, researchers should publicly explain why data are being withheld. But the default position should be that data will be shared -- a practice that allows data and conclusions to be verified, contributes to further scientific advances, and allows the development of beneficial goods and services. Research data can be valuable for many years after they are generated -- for verifying results and generating new findings -- but maintaining high-quality and reliable databases can be costly, the report observes.

Read full article

e-Knowledge about biodiversity and agriculture

From 9-13 November 2009, Montpellier hosts the annual TDWG conference. Co-organized with Agropolis International and Bioversity International, it will gather experts in biodiversity informatics from leading museums of natural history, botanical gardens and major agricultural research institutions and universities.

The conference is open to anyone working with biodiversity information and informatics wishing to discuss and define the most recent informatics tools and standards applying to taxonomy, imaging, biodiversity data exchange, specimen observations, and diversity analysis.

TDWG - Biodiversity Information Standards - is an international not-for-profit group that develops standards and protocols for sharing biodiversity data.

Data management principles for natural resources management

On a day when the CIARD initiative convenes a small group in Rome to work on some principles and pathways to more accessible research outputs, we can glean useful lessons from the "checklist for guiding principles for data management" put together in the NLWRA/ANZLIC Natural Resources Information Management Toolkit:

• Don't reinvent the wheel: Expedite the project process by not reinventing the information management wheel. Look for efficiencies in data collection: Where possible data should be captured once for multiple/generic use.
  
• Share wherever possible: Where possible share data and foster the development of networks and partnerships.
  
• Present a sound business case: Data collection is expensive. There must be good business justification to support any data collection activity.
  
• Reduce duplication: Avoid duplication in data acquisition. Where possible team up with others.
  
• Look before you collect: Find out what already exists. Look for existing point-of-truth and authoritative datasets.
  
• Fitness-for-purpose: Undertake fitness-for-purpose assessments prior to using external datasets.
  
• Classification systems: Check for standards and existing classification systems or methodologies. Use existing systems and facilities wherever possible.
  
• Think beyond your immediate use: Manage data to maximise their value both during and after the project. Give priority to the broadest value data that are of benefit to multiple processes.
  
• Data custodianship: Select the most robust organisation with the broadest span of interest as the most appropriate custodian of high-value general use information. Reinforce and support data custodians and where possible negotiate access arrangements.
  
• Metadata: Complete metadata documentation is required for every dataset to demonstrate best practice. Metadata provides information about datasets such as accessibility, currency, completeness, fitness-for-purpose and suitability for use.

See the Toolkit

Data and information management toolkit

Australia's National Land and Water Resources Audit and ANZLIC Natural Resources Information Management Toolkit is a set of modules to help groups "discover, access, visualise and manage their data and information."

The "contemporary view of sustainable management of natural resources is that it is best achieved by ... involving the development of strong cooperative partnerships between government bodies, the community, on-ground land managers and educational institutions." This implies that each of these groups has to be able to effectively manage data and information.

"The Toolkit has been designed to provide universal principles of best practice for data and information management." It has a particular emphasis on capacity building and spatial data - though the principles apply much wider.

Making the web work for science

Last week's posting on making our information accessible was picked up by Peter Suber's open access blog.

One of the ways we can make our information and data more accessible is by paying attention to the way we license our content. Over at the Science Commons - a sister initiative to Creative Commons - they are proposing some ways that scientific research can be made “re-useful” — so others can use it in new ways.

View this video on the science commons by Jesse Dylan, director of the “Yes We Can” Barack Obama campaign video with musical artist will.i.am from the Black Eyed Peas:

Click to play

See more Creative Commons videos

Improving research data sharing and management

The UK's Research Information Network (RIN) just published a report on a project to investigate the publication and quality assurance of research data. The report 'To Share or not to Share: Publication and Quality Assurance of Research Data Outputs', finds that realising the full potential of data requires further progress in data management policies and practice.

The report argues that "research findings in digital form can [nowadays] be easily moved around, duplicated, handed to others, worked on with new tools, merged with other data, divided up in new ways, stored in vast volumes and manipulated by supercomputers if their nature so demands. There is now widespread recognition that data are a valuable long-term resource and that sharing them and making them publicly-available is essential if their potential value is to be realised."

Based on its survey of scientists, the report highlights "two essential reasons for making research data publicly-available: first, to make them part of the scholarly record that can be validated and tested; second, so that they can be re-used by others in new research."

A set of conclusions and recommendations are provided under the headings:

Creating and caring for data

Policy-makers need to take full account of the different kinds of research data researchers produce, the different values they have, and the different needs of researchers and other potential users.

There is a need for co-operation between researchers, funders and institutions to ensure that sustainable arrangements are in place to preserve valuable data and to make them accessible.

Publishing data: motivations and constraints

Research funders and institutions should actively promote data publishing and re-use, with measures including career-related rewards to researchers who publish high-quality data, case studies on the benefits of doing so, support for researchers in developing sound data management plans, and strategies to address current skills gaps.

Discovery, access and usability of datasets

There is scope for publishers to promote ease of access and use of relevant data sets, and a need to clarify the current confusion over policies on access for text-mining tools. The take-up of Web 2.0 applications should be monitored and its implications considered.

Quality assurance

There is a need for further work on acceptable approaches to the formal assessment of datasets across the disciplinary spectrum.