NASA biological and physical sciences databases: who’s the FAIRest of them all?
Conceptual models are a key part of the foundation of scientific study. Scientific data discovery and retrieval are often inaccurate and incomplete because these models are not sufficiently well-incorporated into data retrieval systems. Systems often don’t provide the necessary tools to those producing scientific data to fully and unambiguously annotate them and the result is consumers of the data cannot find them efficiently. The capability of data archives to provide these tools to link data to underlying conceptual models is one of dimensions of the recently developed “FAIR” principles (https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/ ), and is key to many automated processes being able to operate on these data, particularly analytics involving artificial intelligence. We used an open-source web service to measure the FAIR compliance of the three data archives operated by NASA for the biological and physical sciences: the Life Sciences Data Archive, the Physical Sciences Informatics database, and GeneLab. The service ingests references to data sets in these archives, and then executes domain-non-specific examinations of these data and metadata that test compliance to the FAIR principles. Of the 22 metrics tested, GeneLab passed 11 (50%), and PSI and LSDA each passed 7 (32%). These data were gathered using only one representative data set from each archive and we anticipate variability in results as we continue to apply these metrics to other data. A preliminary study of the failure traces for each metric suggests there is a wide range of effort and complexity in the enhancements required for each system to elevate FAIR compliance, and this is the subject of continued investigation. This information has been and will likely continue to be important information in planning these enhancements, with the goal of increased readiness of the data for automated processes.