Secure way to share your science idea?

[jamesduke]

I (as an average person) was stuck in a dilemma how to validate my research idea, basically same situation as in - http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50970-how-would-one-publish-a-groundbreaking-scientific-idea/

 

So instead of moving on with my research I started to learn more about why people don't want to share their ideas:

• Ideas get stolen with no reference or credit to the source
• Ideas are harder to define on your own
• Ideas are hard to validate (evaluating the validity or novelty of the idea)
• There is no good way of getting constructive feedback outside of my network
• This research might already exist
• You don't want to feel stupid

As a scientist, do you agree or disagree with this observation? If this is a "real problem", then I would be happy to focus into the possible solutions.

[Phi for All]

The probability of you (as an average person) stumbling upon something missed by people who have dedicated their study and lives to science is exremely low. Sure, it's happened before, but still within that statistically low probability. And that's why we have discussion forums like this, and why this particular site also has a Speculations section for those who think science has it wrong.

 

If you post there, make sure to read the rules. We like evidence to back up any assertions made (because that's what mainstream science has already done and continues to do, build a preponderance of trustworthy evidence).

 

So to answer your question, you should figure out what it is you want to share to begin with, maybe a synopsis that gives us some meat without giving away any intellectual property. We'll do what scientists always do, we'll check your arguments and evidence and discuss what's right and wrong about it. Lather, rinse, repeat at each step. This should give you a pretty great idea about whether you need to start protecting your ideas, or if they're based on misinformation and misunderstanding.

 

Science isn't about proof. It's about piling up the evidence that supports your idea, while simultaneously looking for ways it's wrong. That's what we do here, we give a fairly rigorous look at all new ideas, and I hope that's why so many people come here to do what you're doing. We aren't going to sugar coat anything, and you'll get replies from amateurs, talented hobbyists, and professionals at all levels and many disciplines.

 

Enjoy, welcome, and good luck!

 

edit to add: Stop using stupid to describe what you feel sometimes. The word you want is ignorant, which is easily fixable using the exact method you chose (good job!). You can't fix stupid.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Phi for All
additional comment

[fiveworlds]

To me it is fairly simple. I study science simply because I enjoy science. I am not a fabulous artist, musician or singer nor am I great at languages and I never will be. I want to learn new ideas because I find them interesting and I hope that something that I learn will be useful. It is not about being the smartest person ever or taking credit for ideas to become famous and I would hope that if my ideas were to be useful that somebody would be able to expand on the idea and make it even better. Sure looking ignorant isn't nice but if you don't share your ideas with others you will always be ignorant. Say if I could make a pill to help cure HIV or cancer it would be pretty ignorant of me to not share it and let people die for no reason. Worse would be if somebody was capable of improving on that pill and I stopped them because it was my idea.

 

References are good because of responsibility. If I claim an idea is completely mine and somebody dies then I am immediately responsible for that person's death. If however I can say I followed a standardised procedure developed by a large team of scientists known to carry a small margin of error. Then that person could have been informed of the known risks of that procedure and I am not immediately responsible for what happened.

Edited January 20, 2016 by fiveworlds

[ajb]

What you can do is write it all up and then email a copy to yourself and at least two researchers in the field on interest. That way you have some proof of when you wrote you ideas out. You should then hope for some feedback, however if your work is really not up to scratch then you may get no reply at all.

[EdEarl]

For a small fee you can register a copyright with the Library of Congress. Whatever you write becomes public because anyone can request a document or copy of a document, including yours, but the probability of it being read is low. However, it establishes a date for your idea and assures you get credit.

[ajb]

For a small fee you can register a copyright with the Library of Congress. Whatever you write becomes public because anyone can request a document or copy of a document, including yours, but the probability of it being read is low. However, it establishes a date for your idea and assures you get credit.

Yes and no.

 

You can copyright the document itself, meaning that no one should just copy it for themselves, but this does not protect the ideas within that document. It would not force anyone to cite the work, indeed even in published scientific works attributions are not always correct.

 

If one has some technology or a product then one could seek a patent.

[EdEarl]

Yes and no.

 

You can copyright the document itself, meaning that no one should just copy it for themselves, but this does not protect the ideas within that document. It would not force anyone to cite the work, indeed even in published scientific works attributions are not always correct.

 

If one has some technology or a product then one could seek a patent.

I should have mentioned that a copyright does not protect an idea, which is the purpose of a patent. On the other hand, patents are expensive, and copyrights are not. If one does not advertise their copyright, the probability of it being read is small and that secrecy gives protection. On the other hand, if the idea has commercial value, one should get a patent.