The important concept of crowdsourcing has been taken up

The important concept of crowdsourcing has been taken up for market-based prediction markets, which operate with the additional benefit of a crowd-generated feedback signal or price, rather than a simple average. Evidence is mounting that prediction markets outperform not only the judgements of individual experts but also simple averages from the crowd. For example in a two year test on geopolitical questions, a prediction market performed 40% better than simple averages (). There has been a call for prediction market methodology to be more widely utilised in science () and this is now occurring through the SciCast platform (). So where does this lead traditional open group work? Open work with member to member, face to face, or electronic communication is by nature limited in size, thus limiting cognitive diversity. Optimal group size will decrease as communication needs increase with higher task complexity (). Intra group social influences can be problematic as it can reduce the xanthine oxidase inhibitors of member opinions without reducing collective error (). Individuals\' decisions may become correlated due to open interaction and a new set of social biases at the group level may be introduced such as group think, in-group bias and bandwagon effect (). However, sometimes optimal communication and co-operation can only occur through the interactive open work group. Woolley et al. reported on group performance in over 700 individuals working in groups of 2 to 5 in a range of face to face tasks; a collective intelligence emerged from the open group beyond the sum total of individual input (). This collective intelligence was more strongly correlated with a proportion of conversation turn taking and social sensitivity rather than the average or maximum intelligence of individual group members. It was concluded that it may be easier to range the intelligence of a group rather than the individual (). Incentives for group participation need to be considered. In Citizen Science intrinsic motivation such as scientific curiosity and altruism are often engaged but for other types of crowdsourcing activities extrinsic rewards, such as monetary prizes are sometimes offered; such as by the data science platform of .
Experience is a valuable asset in scientific discovery. It enables the researcher to understand what has and has not worked in the past, and the way that problems can or should be addressed. However sometimes experience becomes enmired in dogma, and we must become careful as scientists not to think that what has been done previously is the only meaningful route forward. A strong object lesson is provided by the antibiotic discovery paradigm. With few exceptions, since the very first investigations we have considered that the gold standard for discovery of a useful antibiotic is its ability to kill or prevent the growth of serious bacterial pathogens using standard laboratory protocols that have been enshrined as the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines (). However this single minded faith in a particular approach has almost certainly favoured the development of the current antibiotic resistance crisis. The paper of Nizet and colleagues () shows clearly that we need to rethink this approach.
Contrary to bacterial replicating kinetics, where the doubling time varies considerably but often is measured in minutes or hours, viral replication kinetics is calculated in days. A new study by Isabelle Lodding and colleagues in E-Biomedicine attempts to calculate the doubling time of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in a cohort of solid organ and stem cell recipients (). Why does the doubling time of CMV matter? This number is of great interest to the transplant specialist, as the preemptive treatment approach relies on the detection of replicating CMV in blood before disease occurs. Regular determination of quantitative CMV PCR testing allows selecting those patients with reactivation of CMV in need of a preemptive treatment. Often, a quantitative CMV copy threshold in blood is used to start antiviral treatment. Neither the optimal frequency of CMV testing nor the ideal source of CMV PCR (whole blood, or plasma), nor the optimal threshold has been established. Thus, protocols between transplant centers vary. The recently published updated international consensus guidelines on the management of cytomegalovirus in solid-organ transplantation recommended weekly testing for 3–4months, with moderate evidence (). For most centers, however, it would be very difficult to adhere to such a tight schedule, in particular later after transplantation. Therefore, a precise knowledge of the doubling time would allow to safely widen the interval between CMV PCR testing, without an increase in CMV disease episodes. The main finding of the study by Lodding and colleagues is a CMV doubling time of 4.3days (median, IQR 2.5–7.8), which in contrast to earlier studies is considerably longer. Neither the donor–recipient CMV sero-constellation nor the type of transplant did influence these results. Earlier studies by V. Emery and P. Griffiths in bone marrow transplant patients estimated a shorter doubling time of CMV of 1.5days (median, range 0.38–4.7) (). Similar doubling times were calculated in a cohort of liver transplant recipients (2days (median, 0.1–69)) (). Many factors may have influenced these different estimates, including the intensity of immunosuppression, the type of sample used for CMV PCR detection, frequency of measurement, type of transplantation, or percentage of patients at high risk for CMV reactivation. While some are less likely than other to play a role, data on the influence of these factors on the doubling time are conflicting.