Updates to the history section

Author: protohedgehog

content_development/MAIN.md

@@ -188,13 +188,15 @@ The question to you is, *do you believe that science can help progress towards r
 
 **Science wants to be Open by default.**
 
-The earliest form of Open Science can perhaps trace its origins back the 17th century, and the origins of the academic journal, such as the [Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Transactions_of_the_Royal_Society). *Transactions* collected and disseminated a broad range of observations and experiment descriptions and spread the work of the Invisible College, the informal gathering of natural philosophers at Oxford and elsewhere. Publication of scientific "news" was also catalysed by an increasing demand for the wider dissemination of scientific knowledge with the wider public. However, the origins can probably go back even further to the very birth of scholarly practices. Much of what we know about our world and universe has foundations in fundamental openness, from evolution and the origin of species, through to gravity and the origins of stars.
+The commitment to opening science to help make it more transparent and accessible is nothing new. For some historians of science, openness marks the beginning of science itself: with the printing press, the rise of publication markets and empirical methods in the early modern period came both the professionalization of scientists and the institutionalization of the Academies [(David 2008)](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2209188).
+
+As such, the earliest form of "Open Science"" can perhaps trace its origins back the 17th century, and the origins of the academic journal, such as the [Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Transactions_of_the_Royal_Society). *Transactions* collected and disseminated a broad range of observations and experiment descriptions and spread the work of the Invisible College, the informal gathering of natural philosophers at Oxford and elsewhere. Publication of scientific "news" was also catalysed by an increasing demand for the wider dissemination of scientific knowledge with the wider public. However, the origins can probably go back even further to the very birth of scholarly practices. Much of what we know about our world and universe has foundations in fundamental openness, from evolution and the origin of species, through to gravity and the origins of stars.
 
 In the 1660s, Robert Boyle, the "father of chemistry," broke with the practices of alchemy in his early writings, e.g., [The Sceptical Chymist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sceptical_Chymist), and promoted open experimentation (following Roger Bacon's model). Previously, alchemists occulted their methods and their knowledge died with them. What might have been called "open alchemy" became "natural philosophy" and then "science." **Science was born open**.
 
-Although difficult to pin down exactly, the origins of what many call the modern 'Open Science movement' were probably catalysed by increasing frustration, debate, and distress regarding the impacts of 'closed science' (e.g., barriers such as subscription paywalls) and commercialisation of knowledge dissemination by corporate publishers. Indeed, one of the rallying cries of the Open Science movement is that taxpayers who have already paid to fund research should not be having to pay again to read the results of it.
+Although difficult to pin down exactly, the origins of what many call the modern 'Open Science movement' were probably catalysed by increasing frustration, debate, and distress regarding the impacts of 'closed science' (e.g., barriers such as subscription paywalls) and commercialisation of knowledge dissemination by corporate publishers. Indeed, one of the rallying cries of the Open Science "movement" is that taxpayers who have already paid to fund research should not be having to pay again to read the results of it.
 
-The term "Open Science" itself appears to have been coined by [Steve Mann in 1998](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_science#Coining_of_phrase_%22OpenScience%22).
+The term "Open Science" itself appears to have been coined by [Steve Mann in 1998](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_science#Coining_of_phrase_%22OpenScience%22). Some consider the present 'Open Science movement' to date back 30-40 years, taking inspiration from cultural changes happening around free software (see [Kelty, 2008](https://www.twobits.net/pub/Kelty-TwoBits.pdf) for more on this), and the ideas developed for research collaboration in the context of "e-science". At a first glance these approaches refer mainly to the technological dimension of opening up science by creating necessary tools and infrastructures.
 
 In the last two decades, there has been an explosive growth in the development of different aspects of scholarly infrastructure - the core, underpinning aspects of a well-functioning research machine. Much of this is a blend of non-profit and commercial services, which are now variably integrated, but has created a strange and complex new system of ways to perform and communicate research. It is difficult to here to cast judgement on 'for-profit' versus 'not-for-profit' entities with respect to openness in a simple binary way. For example, for-profit entities like [Publons](https://publons.com/) and [Figshare](https://figshare.com/) were important in catalysing changes in crediting peer review and Open Data respectively; while not-for-profits like the [American Chemical Society](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/open-access-to-science-un/) have actively lobbied against progressive changes around Open Science.