It is surprisingly hard to make the case for these standards. They have an up front cost, particularly early on. If you've got something that works, why change? The strongest argument is from economics -- even if it's tough to adopt a standard, eventually network effects will mandate its use and time will address the defects. (The hard part, of course, is knowing what the real standard will be ...) The future cost may be much higher than near term adaptation ...
Now we have a possible supporting argument from the history of life on earth. Standards adoption by proto-life was important to intra-organismal interoperability ...
The Loom : In the Beginning Was Linux?:Great analysis, but a better analogy would have been file formats and software, not operating systems and software (ok, so the distinction is blurry). Government lawyers made the same mistake in the Microsoft monopoly trial and the judge made the same mistake during the penalty phase. Data formats are far more important than software. Our software/os/interpreters are quite different from those of viruses and bacteria, but the data formats persist. Microsoft should have been forced to surrender control over their data formats -- and forget about their software.
... Scientists have long debated how the same genetic code wound up in all living things. Why twenty amino acids? Why three nucleotides? One possibility was that it was just a "frozen accident." Another has been that it evolved in an ancient lineage and provided an evolutionary edge against others with different codes. ...
...Evolution gradually produced more precise genetic codes, Woese and his colleagues argue, but different communities of microbes evolved different codes. In each community, a shared code made it easier for microbes to share genes. If you plug a gene into an organism with a radically different code, it will produce a radically different protein--mostly likely one that is useless as well. It's like grabbing a piece of software and trying to run it on the wrong operating system.
The more microbes used the same genetic code, the bigger the pool of genes they could all take advantage of. Those shared innovations benefited the entire community as it competed with communities with other genetic codes. Imagine microbes colonizing some bizarre new ecological niche--a seep of petroleum, for example, or undersea volcanic chambers. The microbes that can take advantage of more innovations will outcompete the ones that belong to the smaller community. This advantage would also drive the evolution of different genetic codes to be more like one another, because communities of microbes would get access to even more innovations.
Over time, the benefits of a big innovation pool wiped out the original diversity of rare codes, replacing it with one universal language. Only later did life begin to lose its communal nature and begin to evolve into separate lineages that we see now as the tree of life. While those lineages produced things as different as humans and bacteria, they all share the same genetic code that evolved during that communal age.
In that regard evolution has something to teach open source movements, which historically have paid far too much attention to software and not enough attention to data. Health informatics understood this twenty years ago, and now fights over file formats with state governments indicates others are catching on ...
No comments:
Post a Comment