Sir

You cite compelling reasons for the scientific community to share data (Nature 461, 145; 2009 and Nature 461, 168–173; 2009). But there is also a case for extending this to the broader community, including the general public.

Vertebrate palaeontology is a particularly rich candidate in this respect, as evidenced by blogging activity and busy internet traffic. Requests by amateur enthusiasts for copies of publications, measurements and photographs of fossils are commonplace.

To harness some of this enthusiasm, we launched the Open Dinosaur Project (http://opendino.wordpress.com) last month. Participants include students, professional scientists and artists, who enter measurements of fossil specimens from the literature and personal observation into a central public database. Participants may also contribute their expertise in data analysis and interpretation. All contributors will eventually be listed as authors on the first publication arising from the database.

Many older papers include data-rich tables of measurements, which are essential for comparisons between specimens. But there is a recent disturbing tendency to omit such information, even in studies that analyse hundreds of measurements for documenting evolutionary trends — perhaps because authors believe their exclusive access to the raw data gives them a competitive edge (Nature 461, 160–163; 2009). The Open Dinosaur Project data are owned jointly by the whole community, so this is no longer an issue.

Scientists lament the public's poor understanding and mistrust of science, and funding agencies want demonstration of 'broader impact' for research proposals. Public databases, particularly for engaging disciplines such as palaeontology and astronomy, may offer one solution.