I agree that there's a danger we could lose our connection to everyone else.

But staying private has risks, too. One is that firms under no obligation to make public a full set of audited accounts will remain veiled from the scrutiny of analysts and short-sellers and so act irresponsibly. America’s tech “unicorns”—firms that have reached a valuation of more than $1 billion—are worth around $300 billion between them. The danger that some of this capital is being misallocated is high.

The other risk is that a charmed circle with great wealth becomes cut off from everyone else. For a group rewriting the rules for industry after industry, that is a special danger.

As a member of the biotechnology community, I see distinct social and commercial liabilities resulting from cultural divisions between information and biological technologies. Biotech has not sufficiently integrated skill sets that could invaluably facilitate the exchange of information and ideas in both open and circumscribed forums. I'm currently doing pro bono work for One Mind (onemind.org), an organization creating an open science interactive data exchange portal. One Mind is a major first step, but much remains to be done.....a PandaWhale for biotech?   

Thank you for the link: http://onemind.org/

It's hard to know where to begin to tackle big problems. 

But I think you're right that openness and sharing knowledge are a good start.

That's our attitude on PandaWhale.