Let's talk about dark data — what it means and how to navigate it. Graphic byMiguel Tovar/University of Houston

Is it necessary to share ALL your data? Is transparency a good thing or does it make researchers “vulnerable,” as author Nathan Schneider suggests in the Chronicle of Higher Education article, “Why Researchers Shouldn’t Share All Their Data.”

Dark Data Defined

Dark data is defined as the universe of information an organization collects, processes and stores – oftentimes for compliance reasons. Dark data never makes it to the official publication part of the project. According to the Gartner Glossary, “storing and securing data typically incurs more expense (and sometimes greater risk) than value.”

This topic is reminiscent of the file drawer effect, a phenomenon which reflects the influence of the results of a study on whether or not the study is published. Negative results can be just as important as hypotheses that are proven.

Publication bias and the need to only publish positive research that supports the PI’s hypothesis, it can be argued, is not good science. According to an article in the Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, authors Priscilla Joys Nagarajan, et al., wrote: “It is speculated that every significant result in the published world has 19 non-significant counterparts in file drawers.” That’s one definition of dark data.

Total Transparency

But what to do with all your excess information that did not make it to publication, most likely because of various constraints? Should everything, meaning every little tidbit, be readily available to the research community?

Schneider doesn’t think it should be. In his article, he writes that he hides some findings in a paper notebook or behind a password, and he keeps interviews and transcripts offline altogether to protect his sources.

Open-source

Open-source software communities tend to regard total transparency as inherently good. What are the advantages of total transparency? You may make connections between projects that you wouldn’t have otherwise. You can easily reproduce a peer’s experiment. You can even become more meticulous in your note-taking and experimental methods since you know it’s not private information. Similarly, journalists will recognize this thought pattern as the recent, popular call to engage in “open journalism.” Essentially, an author’s entire writing and editing process can be recorded, step by step.

TMI

This trend has led researchers to open-source programs like Jupyter and GitHub. Open-source programs detail every change that occurs along a project’s timeline. Is unorganized, excessive amounts of unpublishable data really what transparency means? Or does it confuse those looking for meaningful research that is meticulously curated?

The Big Idea

And what about the “vulnerability” claim? Sharing every edit and every new direction taken opens a scientist up to scoffers and harassment, even. Dark data in industry even involves publishing salaries, which can feel unfair to underrepresented, marginalized populations.

In Model View Culture, Ellen Marie Dash wrote: “Let’s give safety and consent the absolute highest priority, with openness and transparency prioritized explicitly below those. This means digging deep, properly articulating in detail what problems you are trying to solve with openness and transparency, and handling them individually or in smaller groups.”

------

This article originally appeared on the University of Houston's The Big Idea. Sarah Hill, the author of this piece, is the communications manager for the UH Division of Research.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston hospitals recognized as best in state, nation in annual report

better than all the rest

Houston’s University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center has retained its U.S. News & World Report crown as the best cancer hospital in the U.S.

In the same ranking, Houston Methodist Hospital once again came out on top as the best hospital in Texas. Last year, the hospital shared the top spot. Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Center ranked No. 4, followed by No. 5 Memorial Hermann Hospital.

The accolades appear in U.S. News2024-25 ranking of the country’s best hospitals. Each hospital also ranked among various specialties, such as orthopedics; cardiology, heart, and vascular surgery; cancer; and neurology and neurosurgery.

Since U.S. News introduced its annual hospital survey in 1990, MD Anderson has been ranked one of the two best U.S. hospitals for cancer care. It has maintained its No. 1 ranking for 10 consecutive years.

“At MD Anderson, our mission is clear: to end cancer,” Dr. Peter WT Pisters, president of MD Anderson, says in a news release. “This ranking reflects our relentless commitment to excellence in patient care, research, prevention, and education.”

MD Anderson also ranked highly in three specialties:

  • No. 2 for ear, nose, and throat.
  • No. 9 for urology.
  • No. 14 for gastroenterology and GI surgery.

“The consistent top national recognitions [that] MD Anderson receives for delivering compassionate, evidence-based care is a testament to our dedication to those we serve,” Pisters says.

Elsewhere at the Texas Medical Center, Houston Methodist Hospital was named the No. 1 hospital in Texas for the 13th year in a row. Also, it was lauded as one of the country’s 20 best hospitals for the eighth time.

Along with the general ranking, Houston Methodist Hospital scored high marks in 10 specialties. These include diabetes and endocrinology (No. 6), gastroenterology and GI surgery (No. 7), and pulmonology and lung surgery (No. 8).

Meanwhile, four Houston Methodist community hospitals ranked well in Texas:

  • Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital (No. 8).
  • Houston Methodist Sugar Land Hospital (No. 9).
  • Houston Methodist Baytown Hospital (tied at No. 18).
  • Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital (tied at No. 23).

New app with tips for solo women travelers takes flight from Texas

explore mode activated

We all have that one friend whose office seems to be the nearest airport gate. We go to them for travel advice and hit save on their latest post for that hole-in-the-wall restaurant that had the best local food. That type of advice — especially between women — is indispensable for solo travelers, and now a new travel app based in Austin is helping organize it on a new platform without the social media noise.

Solo travel has gained a lot of momentum in the past few years, and it’s no longer just something one does during a gap year before or after college. It’s become the preferred way to travel for many, and women are at the forefront.

According to Condor Ferries, 72 percent of American women like to take solo trips, and the term “female solo travel” has increased 62 percent over the past three years across all search engines. What if there was a place where women solo travelers could get recommendations and travel itineraries created by other solo women travelers?

This concept is the backbone of Airheart, which aims to revolutionize the travel industry by offering a safe space for solo female travelers to find itineraries and travel guides that were crafted with them in mind.

"Traveling solo as a woman is an empowering act of independence," said Airheart founder Lindsey Renken in a press release. "At Airheart, we celebrate and support this journey, helping women discover new places, connections, and strengths."

The platform includes integrated planning tools, interactive maps, itineraries, and video tips all conveniently located in one place and customizable to the traveler’s preference. Once a user creates an account and accesses the site, the navigation is pretty straightforward.

There’s an explore option at the top of the home screen showcasing all the travel guides available for purchase within the platform, with destinations all over the world. At the moment, most are within the US, Mexico, Western Europe, and Asia. Once the user chooses a guide, a sidebar populates with a list of recommendations or a day-by-day itinerary. The right side of the screen is a map with all the pinned recommendations for easy navigating.

For those wanting to travel more within Texas this summer, Airheart offers a few destinations with a wide range of activities:

  • Big Bend/West Texas: For nature lovers, explore the beautiful mountain desert region of West Texas with a comprehensive guide that includes tips on how to get there and how to choose the best accommodation for your trip — something that becomes more complex in such a remote place.
  • Glen Rose: Escape to this charming small town just an hour-and-a-half Southwest of Dallas-Fort Worth, that is perfect for a weekend getaway full of outdoor adventures. These recommendations come from a local.
  • Fredericksburg: Indulge in the best wineries and restaurants that Central Texas has to offer with an itinerary crafted by a Texas native. This one is ideal for a quick day trip or a fun girls’ weekend.

Airheart, named after the pioneering aviator Amelia Earhart, is also focused on empowering female travel creators by allowing them to act as a type of modern travel agent. They can monetize both new and existing travel content by creating these guides and itineraries, while reaching a new audience on the platform.

“As an avid traveler, I’m always looking for something like this created by expert travelers. I can’t wait to be a seller and consumer,” said Tanna Wasilchak who contributed guides for Waco, Glen Rose, and Georgetown. “Solo traveling as a female can be intimidating at first, but it’s one of the most rewarding experiences I’ve ever had. Airheart is going to be such a game changer for this community.”

Perhaps the only downside for now is that Airheart is limited in what it can offer to its users with only 22 guides published on the site. However, the features and community-based aspect give the platform the potential to stand out in an otherwise saturated market. Guides ($29 each before taxes and fees) are available for users to browse and purchase at airheart.com.

------

This article originally ran on CultureMap.

Houston startup adviser on navigating SAFE, convertible notes in funding rounds

guest column

As both a founder and occasional early-stage investor in the Houston ecosystem, I've seen firsthand the opportunities and challenges surrounding seed funding for local startups. This critical first fundraising round sets the trajectory, but navigating the landscape can be tricky, especially for first time founders who may not be familiar with the lingo.

One key dynamic is choosing the right deal structure — SAFEs (Simple Agreement for Future Equity) vs. convertible notes are the most common vehicles early stage startups use to raise capital and are far more founder-friendly than a priced round.

Let's start first with what the have in common:

  • Both allow you to defer setting a valuation for your company until a later (likely priced) round, which is useful in early stages or pre-revenue companies
  • Both are cheaper and faster to execute than a priced round, which cash-strapped early stage founders like
  • Both can have terms like valuation cap, discount, conversion event, and pro rata rights.
  • Both are less attractive to investors seeking immediate equity (especially important if starting the QSBS clock is part of your investors strategy or if the investor is newer to startup investing)
  • Both can create messy cap tables and the potential for a lot of dilution for the founders (and investors) if they are used for multiple raises (especially with different terms)

While as you can see they have similarities, they have some important differences. Let's dig in on these next:

SAFEs:

  • Created by Y Combinator in 2013, the intent was to create a simplified, founder friendly agreement as an alternative to the convertible note
  • Is an agreement for future equity for the investor at a conversion event (priced round or liquidation event) which converts automatically.
  • It's not a debt instrument and does not accrue interest or have a maturity date.
  • Generally have much lower upfront legal costs and faster to execute

Convertible Notes:

  • A debt agreement that converts to equity at a later date (or conversion event like a priced round)
  • Accrues interest (usually 2 to 8 percent) and has a maturity date by which the note must either be repaid or convert to equity. If you reach your maturity date before raising a qualifying round, you can often renegotiate to extend the maturity date or convert the note, though be prepared to agree to higher interest rates, additional warrants, or more favorable conversion terms.
  • More complex and take longer to finalize due to non-standard terms resulting in higher legal and administrative costs

It's worth reiterating that in both cases, raising multiple rounds can lead to headaches in the form of complex cap tables, lots of dilution, and higher legal expenses to determine conversion terms. If your rounds have different terms on discounts and valuation caps (likely) it can cause confusion around equity and cap table structure, and leave you (the founder) not sure how much equity you will have until the conversion occurs.

In my last startup, our legal counsel — one of the big dogs in this space for what it's worth — strongly advised us to only do one SAFE round to prevent this.

Why do some investors tend to prefer convertible notes?

There are a few reasons why some investors, particularly angel investors from developing startup ecosystems (like Houston), prefer convertible notes to SAFEs.

  • Because they are structured as debt, note holders have a higher priority than equity investors in recovering their investment if the company fails or is liquidated. This means they would get paid after other creditors (like loans or credit cards) but before equity investors, increasing the likelihood of getting some of their money back.
  • The interest terms protect investors if the founder takes a long time to raise a priced funding round. As time passes, interest accumulates, increasing the investor's potential return. This usually results in the investor receiving a larger equity stake when the note converts. However, if the investor chooses to call in the note instead, the accrued interest would increase the amount of money owed, similar to a traditional loan
  • More defined conversion triggers (including a maturity date) gives investors more control and transparency on when and how their investment will convert.
  • Can negotiate more favorable terms than the standard SAFE agreement, including having both a valuation cap and a discount (uncommon on a SAFE, which usually only has one or the other), interest rates, and amendment clauses to protect them from term revisions on earlier investors by future investors (called a cram-down), etc.
We'll go over what the various terms in these agreements are and what to look out for in a future article

How to choose:

  • Consider your startup's stage and valuation certainty — really uncertain or super early? Either of these instruments are preferable to a priced round as you can defer the valuation discussion
  • Assess investor preferences in your network — often the deciding factor if you don't have a lot of leverage; most local angels prefer c-notes because they see them as less risky though SAFEs are becoming more common with investors in tech hubs like Silicon Valley
  • Evaluate your timeline and budget for legal costs — as I mentioned, SAFEs are way less expensive to execute (though still be prepared to spend some cash).
  • Align the vehicle with your specific goals and growth trajectory

There's no one-size-fits-all solution, so it's crucial to weigh these factors carefully.

The meanings of these round terms like "seed" are flexible, and the average seed funding amount has increased significantly over the past decade, reaching $3.5 million as of January 2024. This trend underscores the importance of choosing the right funding vehicle and approach.

Looking ahead, I'm bullish on Houston's growing startup ecosystem flourishing further. Expect more capital formation from recycled wins, especially once recently minted unicorns like High Radius, Cart.com, Solugen, and Axiom Space exit and infuse the ecosystem with fresh and hungry angels, new platforms beyond traditional venture models, and evolving founder demographics bringing fresh perspectives.

------

Adrianne Stone is the principal product manager at Big Cartel and the founder of Bayou City Startups, a monthly happy hour organizer. This article original ran on LinkedIn.