For a number of months now I've been crunching away successfully, as a newcomer via the COVID-19 work. As time has gone on I've delved further into understanding the wider direction of the project thanks to mostly to these message boards and several news articles.

I have noticed though most recent articles from Dr David Baker appeared in paywalled journals. When attempting to understand what specific science my crunching is helping I'm left to decipher near cryptic naming conventions of the work units. And other stumbling blocks towards my exploration and engagement with the science.

Does Rosetta@home have a policy surrounding the use of such a public voluntary platform to prioritise Open Access science projects and their publication? Has a stance historically been made? Is there scope to bring about regular readdressing of the topic if so?

Is there a way for volunteers to identify which WU's are helping which specific scientific research? A list of recently running research? Initiatives for voluntary crunchers (and potentially the wider public) to more expansively engage with the science? An FAQ on the WU naming conventions?

Does Rosetta@home have an Ethics Policy? Are there no go areas in terms of the types of research the project will emphatically not get involved in?

For now things appear a little opaque to me, but I suspect this could be down to my relatively new take on the project. Or is it by design?

For a number of months now I've been crunching away successfully, as a newcomer via the COVID-19 work. As time has gone on I've delved further into understanding the wider direction of the project thanks to mostly to these message boards and several news articles.

I have noticed though most recent articles from Dr David Baker appeared in paywalled journals. When attempting to understand what specific science my crunching is helping I'm left to decipher near cryptic naming conventions of the work units. And other stumbling blocks towards my exploration and engagement with the science.

Does Rosetta@home have a policy surrounding the use of such a public voluntary platform to prioritise Open Access science projects and their publication? Has a stance historically been made? Is there scope to bring about regular readdressing of the topic if so?

Is there a way for volunteers to identify which WU's are helping which specific scientific research? A list of recently running research? Initiatives for voluntary crunchers (and potentially the wider public) to more expansively engage with the science? An FAQ on the WU naming conventions?

Does Rosetta@home have an Ethics Policy? Are there no go areas in terms of the types of research the project will emphatically not get involved in?

For now things appear a little opaque to me, but I suspect this could be down to my relatively new take on the project. Or is it by design?

Workunits provided by 3rd party companies come with names that make sense to them and are not changed by the Project.

I have been wondering about this as well and would love more clarification. The only thing I can find is this list where at least some of the publications are freely available from the NIH's website: https://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/Publications_by_BOINC_projects#Rosetta.40home. Two of those articles were behind a paywall, one of them appears to be accessible after creating a free account. Rosetta@home should at least have a list of publications that directly benefited from community donated computing resources.

Where are these public domain results?
Who will own the results of rosetta@home?
Will someone (i.e. BigPharma) make money out of my CPU time?
Solid answer needed, for who do we do this?

David Baker's Ted Talk on the big picture of their research

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

Cool, thanks for sharing!