Sir

Your News Feature 'Wikiomics' (Nature 455, 22–25; 2008) points out that the growing online wiki-style community collaboration offers a smart way to respond to torrents of new data. Although lack of recognition and credit may prevent scientists from actively participating, this may be only part of the story. Reasons for not giving back to the community can be more complicated.

Handling and analysing big data sets is becoming more and more challenging. Wiki-style information is convenient, and the GenMAPP pathway database you mention is a good example. But the lack of a unified data format for facilitating the exchange from one database to another can be a killer for someone trying to submit data. There is currently no de facto standard on pathway-data format, which severely diminishes data portability.

The scientific community and commercial bodies should come up with a consortium to resolve this issue by creating an open-source format, instead of developing their own pathway-drawing tools. This would facilitate knowledge-sharing and allow more focused development.

The consortium could also serve as a hub to consolidate wiki pages. With the evolution of more and more similar wiki pages, information is at risk of becoming redundant and fragmented. The consortium might provide a forum for discussion among scientists from different disciplines to arrive at a consensus on this issue. This would also give the data-submitter more security and remove concerns about database discontinuity.

It all sounds easy, but in practice would be difficult. No one wants to waste what they have developed. However, with the cost of genomic research being reduced — take the 'US$1,000 genome' project, for example — a large number of big databases should materialize in the not-so-distant future. A more efficient wiki community is sorely needed to cope with this advancement.

See also Big data: teaching must evolve to keep up with advances.