NBII To Be Taken Offline Permanently January 15, 2012

In recent years, how­ever, the NBII–like so many other impor­tant fed­eral programs–was plagued with bud­get cuts. The FY 2012 bud­get man­dated its ter­mi­na­tion. The main Web site, www.nbii.gov, will be taken offline on Jan­u­ary 15, 2012, along with all of its asso­ci­ated node sites.

The NBII pro­vided three main ben­e­fits to the bio­log­i­cal resource com­mu­nity. First, its design as a fed­er­a­tion of part­ners allowed it to assist data own­ers in main­tain­ing crit­i­cal assets that might not oth­er­wise be made broadly avail­able; sec­ond, sci­en­tists, man­agers, and oth­ers search­ing for data on a par­tic­u­lar sub­ject could do so from a sin­gle, Web-based source rather than hav­ing to go to the sites of numer­ous orga­ni­za­tions to com­pile the results they sought; and third, the NBII pro­vided users with direct access to many data resources that are deeply embed­ded in struc­tured data­bases on the Web and that are rel­e­vant to biology–resources that would not be revealed to them using a stan­dard search engine such as Google.

USGS staff now are work­ing with part­ners to iden­tify ways that–to the extent possible–will help to fill the gap in data access that will be cre­ated when the NBII goes offline.”

To read more about the National Bio­log­i­cal Infor­ma­tion Infra­struc­ture, here’s a link from which the above quote was taken:

http://www.usgs.gov/core_science_systems/Access/p1111-1.html

A Post­script:

“The Library of Con­gress is a part of a col­lab­o­ra­tive web archive project to archive U.S. Fed­eral Gov­ern­ment Web­sites, and this site has been crawled by the Inter­net Archive as a part of that project. It is not pub­licly acces­si­ble yet but it has been preserved.

 

Since we’re a part of the col­lab­o­ra­tive project, we’ll even­tu­ally get a copy of that cap­ture for the Library of Con­gress archives.”

 

/mrc (Mar­garet Clifton, )

 

Cloud data storage for medical records — bad idea

Top 10 list rejects cloud for clin­i­cal data

By George Miller

Com­ment | For­ward | Twit­ter | Face­book | LinkedIn

The debate con­tin­ues over whether cloud plat­forms can secure highly sen­si­tive clin­i­cal trial data and health records. But eWeek makes no bones about its posi­tion in a top 10 list of why it’s a bad idea to store such records up there.

The 11-slide pre­sen­ta­tion encap­su­lates both well-known and less-well-known argu­ments for data stor­age via local ser­vices rather than an Internet-based, on-demand sys­tem. Among them: the highly sen­si­tive nature of the data makes it a hacker tar­get from the get-go.

Trust is a fac­tor that runs through­out the list: trust in the cloud ser­vice provider that it can and will restrict access to the barest min­i­mum, that it truly de-personalizes data, and even that it will still be in exis­tence tomorrow.

A dis­clo­sure state­ment con­cern­ing source mate­r­ial explains the anti-cloud bias. But the list remains a use­ful one.

- here’s the slide show

Related Arti­cles:
Experts: Beware of breaches in cloud com­put­ing
Cloud experts agree: choose care­fully

Source: Fierce­Biotech IT [editors@fiercebiotechit.com] 8.23.10

NSF requests data sharing plans with grant applications

National Sci­ence Foun­da­tion Sets Rules for Shar­ing Data

The National Sci­ence Foun­da­tion will soon begin requir­ing all grant appli­cants to sub­mit a two-page plan describ­ing how they will man­age and share any data that is accu­mu­lated as part of their grant, in the lat­est exam­ple of a grow­ing effort to ensure pub­lic access to find­ings financed with tax­payer dol­lars, Sci­ence magazine’s Sci­en­ceIn­sider blog reported.”

Source:  Chron­i­cle of Higher Edu­ca­tion, May 7, 2010, via Jane Holmquist