...If we consider that one of the purposes of publication is to offer testable data, then it would seem that a minimum requirement would be that where computer programs and their results are presented, the author will make source code available on request. ACS could render good service by undertaking the distribution of such requested code. Furthermore, I would make it a condition for publication that such source code be provided. If the scientist is unwilling to disclose his code because he wishes to engage in a commercial venture, then I suggest that he be invited to take out a paid advertisement in the journal and be denied the privilege of publication to promote his product.

-John Figueras J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1984, 24, 276

Science moves forward only insofar as observations can be validated and put to use by a third party. Chemical informatics is no different from any other field in this respect. Yet publications of the type Mr. Figueras opposed can still be found in 2006. Why is this?

At issue isn't just software. The ACS has recently spoken out on the necessity of open data sets. As a condition for publication, any data reported in a manuscript must now either appear in Supplementary Material or be “readily available, without infringements or restrictions.” Although this is a positive development, the wait continues for an equivalent statement on the availability of source code.

Open software systems and open data packages are most useful when they can be readily found by others and used together. In an effort to work on this problem, several individuals, including myself, formed The Blue Obelisk group. Through this group and others like it, like-minded researches can begin to reap the benefits of openness enjoyed by other fields.

Now, with all that has gone before as background, what are the opportunities for alternative suppliers of secondary chemical information? Given that there is a single worldwide service that dominates the scene, that it is capable of operating independently, without cooperative links internationally, and that it has recently become an aggressive on-line marketer of chemical information, a competitor to all other on-line chemical information services, what opportunities remain? The answer is rather bleak. Clearly, no one, with the possible exception of the Russians, can afford to abstract and index the world's chemical literature anew. Therefore, there are only two choices – operate under license from CAS, which itself intends to operate a “superior” competing service, or develop an information system that does not depend on the files of CAS. This is not easy given the nature of chemical information and the files of CAS.
...

Is this a field where we do not need the pressure of competition to ensure innovation and reasonably priced services?
Only time will tell.

-Peter F. Urbach J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1984, 24, 1-3

At the start of the twentieth century, Chemical Abstracts Service was itself an upstart in a field dominated by large players, mainly in Europe. Mr. Urbach cites four factors that changed all of that:

1. The practical importance of chemical information relative to other scientific fields gave it an edge in competing for federal funds.
2. The U.S. National Science Foundation contributed 30 million dollars, which was matched by CAS, for the development of what would become the system we know today.
3. English gained acceptance as the universal language of science.
4. CAS management pursued a strategy emphasizing product quality and comprehensiveness.

Given that no technological monopoly lasts forever, what kinds of technologies are most likely to displace CAS and what do they look like today?