The comment I left in the ChemSpider blog,\nwas probably a bit blunt. ChemSpider announced having licensed software from OpenEye. I\nhave seen such announcements more often, but am intrigued about the nature of such announcements. Is it bad that\nChemSpider is using OpenEye software? Certainly not. But it is surprising that they “announced today they had entered\ninto an agreement that will allow the incorporation of a number of OpenEye’s products into ChemZoo’s online\nchemistry database and property prediction service, ChemSpider” (emphasis mine).
\n\nIs it really special that you buy software and then use it? Maybe, it increasingly is, with a number of good software\nproducts freely available. Even many proprietary products are freely available, sometimes to a selected group only,\nthough. Or, is there some license behind this that restricts you in what you may and may not do with it?
\n\nAnyway, I made the somewhat inconsiderate comment: “Amazing! (Forgive me that I [have] not read every bit…) But,\namazing! A press release for the fact that one may use software ;)”.
\n\nAnthony replied with these lines: “Yes, I think it is amazing that companies of this caliber are willing to provide\ntheir tools at no cost to systems like ChemSpider”. He read my sarcasm correctly. I find it absurd that the future of\nchemoinformatics is left to the goodwill of benevolent companies. Chemoinformatics is way too important, and in way\nto crappy state, to be kept as proprietary toy to industry; that’s\nsomething I argued before .
\n\nLet me try to explain where my sarcasm is coming from.
\n\nThere is nothing wrong with getting payed for what you do. I get payed for the software I develop too, though\nmost of my contributions to the CDK, Jmol en even some some of my\ncontributions to Bioclipse I have made as a hobby, in my spare time, unpaid. Nothing\nwrong with a good hobby, I would say.
\n\nBut I do not blame people for not doing the same. Neither do I blame myself for making a reasonable living in\nThe Netherlands, unlike all those poor bastards who struggle to make it to the next month, like\nmany in the United States. But I do not like the\nsituation. Neither do I blame people for being religious, though I really dislike several of the things the\nChurch is trying to make people believe (such as that\nthe HIV virus can get through condoms).\nI hate the situation.
\n\nPeople have to make a living. I do; anyone does. I do feel, however, there is a difference between making a\nliving because you work, and getting money because you happen to be at the right side of the money flow. There\nis a difference between a baker getting up at 5am every morning to feed a village, and someone selling a thin\nslice of bread via eBay to a poor African soul who just received his/her OPLC laptop. Not that I think this\nreally applies to the ChemSpider/OpenEye deal; just to make a statement about commercialism.
\n\nThe Bill Gates foundation spending a lot of money on scientific research is what Dutch would call een sigaar uit eigen doos.\nThis translate to something like getting a present you payed yourself. Literally, ‘to get a sigar from ones own box’.\nBut that’s another story.
I hate the situation that research for new drugs is so expensive, and medicine likewise. I hate it that\npharmaceutical industry cannot sell these drugs cheaply to development countries, because they will be sold\nexpensively in western markets. But I do not blame the scientists working in pharma industry.
\n\nI hate the situation that scientific results cannot be reproduced independently, because software is being\nused as black box. But I do not blame the guy who wrote the code.
\n\nI hate the situation that I cannot contribute the excellent products around, because they disallow me to\ndiscuss my work with others. But I do not blame the guy who sold me the license.
\n\nI hate the situation that many very qualified scientists have to find a post-doc after post-doc before the\ngive up and do to industry. I hate the situation that the better scientist you are, the less science you\nactually do, because all time is spent on getting further funds. But I do not blame those who payed for\nthose temporary post-doc positions.
\n\nI hate the situation that people have to use commercial models for their scientific contributions, just to\nmake a living, even though they would have loved to contribute that to mankind. But I do not blame them for\nwanting to be able to fulfill their primary living requirements (and those of their families).
\n\nI hate the situation I review papers for free for commercial publishers, just to help science progress.\nI do blame myself for not having stopped doing that yet.
\n\nBut I do not blame ChemSpider for buying or using commercial products. I do not blame the people working\nat OpenEye for making a living. But I do find it absurd that we have to be amazed that scientific software\nis put to work.
\n\nI apologize for being blunt, but I cannot apologize for disliking the current situation chemoinformatics is in.
", "summary": "The comment I left in the ChemSpider blog, was probably a bit blunt. ChemSpider announced having licensed software from OpenEye. I have seen such announcements more often, but am intrigued about the nature of such announcements. Is it bad that ChemSpider is using OpenEye software? Certainly not. But it is surprising that they “announced today they had entered into an agreement that will allow the incorporation of a number of OpenEye’s products into ChemZoo’s online chemistry database and property prediction service, ChemSpider” (emphasis mine).", "date_published": "2007-12-13T00:00:00+00:00", "date_modified": "2025-04-20T00:00:00+00:00", "tags": ["openscience"], "authors": [ { "name": "Egon Willighagen", "url": "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7542-0286" } ] } ] }