Nature | Editorial

Cloud cover

Opposition to storing vast scientific data sets on cloud-computing platforms is weakening.

Article tools

Earlier this week, the trade magazine Computer Weekly ran a short online news story about a British genomics project buying a commercial system to store its data. Genomics England, which runs the 100,000 Genomes Project, had decided to “reject” the chance to develop its own open-source system, the magazine reported.

In the past, the finer details of IT procurement were not a hot topic for researchers, and so were largely ignored by Nature. No longer. Just as a budding journalist cannot hope to flourish these days without a decent working knowledge of the web and multimedia skills, so young (and not-so-young) scientists must increasingly navigate the landscape of large-scale digital-information management.

As a workshop on scientific computing in Portland, Oregon, last month put it: “Computational and data-driven sciences have become the third and fourth pillar of scientific discovery in addition to experimental and theoretical sciences.” In the era of big data, researchers — and journals — simply have to know their HPC (high-performance computing) from their IOPS (input/output operations per second).

‘Big’ barely does justice to the scale of modern scientific data. Mega, giga, tera: all are becoming increasingly familiar — then redundant — terms as the sheer colossus of research data continues to build. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Europe’s particle-physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, can generate some 25 million gigabytes of data each year — around ten times the estimated storage capacity of the human memory. Just where are we going to put it all?

A new destination has emerged in recent years: stick it in the cloud, the pervasive web-based services that will, for a fee, take your files off your hands. Late last month, the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, a biomedical and genomic research centre in Cambridge, Massachusetts, announced a partnership with Google Genomics to use its cloud-computing platform to store, analyse and share data. Other clouds are available, and scientists have hooked up with many of them.

In a Comment piece on page 149, several senior scientists call for this trend to accelerate. Major funding agencies, they say, should pay to place large biological data sets on the servers of the most popular cloud services — Google, Amazon and Microsoft among them. Authorized scientists would then be able to tap easily and relatively cheaply into this “global commons”. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has cleared the way for such a move: earlier this year it lifted its 2007 ban on using cloud computing to keep and work with its own genetic database.

The NIH had been anxious about the possible threat to the privacy of those who had submitted samples. Such concerns are even more acute in Europe, where the European Commission is already engaged in an ambitious effort to crack down on how personal information is used online. (Scientists have flagged concerns that proposed new data-protection regulations could inadvertently damage clinical research; see Nature 522, 391–392; 2015.) So it is reassuring that the commission has pledged to increase the access to scientific data through a continent-wide cloud-computing platform.

As we report in a News story on page 136, plans for one possible model for the European Open Science Cloud are gaining momentum, following a meeting in Geneva two weeks ago. Supporters of the project say that it would reassure academics who are reluctant to use commercial cloud services for security reasons or for fear of being tied to a particular provider. Some of the millions of gigabytes produced by CERN have already gone into a prototype system called the Helix Nebula Marketplace, involving commercial IT providers, and the lab is among those pushing for the idea to be scaled up. As a striking graph published in the Comment illustrates, the number of geneticists using cloud-based services is rising rapidly. Astronomers and other researchers are doing the same. At the very least, almost all researchers should explore the options. For more, watch this space.

Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
523,
Pages:
128
Date published:
()
DOI:
doi:10.1038/523128a

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability to recommend comments to other users.

Comments

Commenting is currently unavailable.

sign up to Nature briefing

What matters in science — and why — free in your inbox every weekday.

Sign up

Listen

new-pod-red

Nature Podcast

Our award-winning show features highlights from the week's edition of Nature, interviews with the people behind the science, and in-depth commentary and analysis from journalists around the world.