Humans in Science

Sum-up session, moderated by Timo Hannay: (for the commenters, check on the registration site for their identities and links to their webpages).

Peter Murray-Rust

He jotted down a few things that spoke to him. In some time will test us with some idea after the session. Has been blogging for 2 years. One colleague (Andrew) solicited him for it.

His own blog evolved from idea on semantic web into advocacy for open science. There is no puritan ethic that you have to make a post every day or every other period.

Science blogs have an ideal of egalitarianism, mutual support replacing the coffee/journal club. That we can all speak on equal terms. Unpredictable in reactions generated. Most people do it for catharsis rather than seeking readership. But once you do evolve into responsibility to your readership can be guilt-inducing if you are not providing what they ask for from you.

Cameron Neylon

Cameron’s blog inspired by precisely the two other people on the panel. Can help move your own career and trajectory in unexpected ways. A few years ago people thought a blog could damage their career but perhaps things are moving along, if you weigh the benefits and risks of course.

Credit, attribution, peer-review, trust. Themes for the future.

Richard Grant

Role of court jester is to challenge the king – cf. Brian Clegg’s contribution on morning panel about creativity. Started writing anonymously – potential risks to career might be over-estimated? What we’re doing is still not mainstream. The blogs on the Univ Australia are mostly about arts and humanities, and these blog owners are not worried that people won’t take them seriously, that they are wasting their time. Why do we (science bloggers) have to be worried about this, whereas other forms of communication are forced upon us, even (Timo’s bounce-off)?

Question – what do university admin think about blogging as an educational tool – the answer seems to be, they don’t. Never heard of it, or only very vaguely. Not as a personal outlet, certainly, for their employees.

Immediate boss had been ambivalent about time Richard spent writing the blog. He had originally tried only to write it from home but now feels okay about doing it from work about work to some extent.

Everyone jumps in now!

(More after the fold – including the challenge)

Maxine says Nature can use references such as WebCite in a paper so that it’s properly archived. The point was made (by whom?) that the real issue is not getting credit for references to your paper FROM blog posts.

Mo said a potential employer was impressed and pleased by reading his blog, made him more legitimate in this professor’s eyes.

Scott: A blogging benefit is informing yourself about your feelings and checking your sources. And over time if your viewpoint changes, this is part of the scientific thinking process and it is eminently respectable as an activity. The counterpart though by authors seems to be that blogposts should be absolutely perfect if they’re about science, but it’s okay to change your mind, encourage discussion.

Timo asked (esp. Cameron) about how blogging about current research is possible to have open or not depending on the discipline? Does informal credit attribution among bloggers suffice?

Cameron has given the example of being scooped – claim with data on the open lab notebook. If in the (now second) publication on this issue, can you reference your own original lab post? Can one claim that you had the idea first? Jennifer Rohn feels that the “glory” lies in the final publication, not in the primacy claims based on blog posts. So, may the best win.

Mike says perhaps not fair to the non-blogging authors in your collaboration? The other paper was published first in print but we had put it online earlier, could be an appropriate inclusion, but it’s even the proof of the interest of these technologies if you *do* get scooped. Paul Browne brings up posters as another good way to get scooped and everyone just deals with it.

Henry says a blog post is a discussion and as such, as an instant disposable object, is not as such citable. (My idea though is that the lab notebook is not the same object and it is citable.) Timo says that you can cite “personal communication” but Henry says also not a citable object because it’s not really verifiable. Will we need a generational shift to get these media to be archived?

Person on the other side of the room said that he perceives two goals: can blogging catch the scoring aspect of science communication? Asserts blogging can be “just” a form of publication, resembling a scientific journal to a fluid extent. How decide what counts as “points” so you can progress to the next level (tenure, postdoc, saving the princess)? This is a current source of tension.

Egon said that he uses it essentially for personal reasons and not at all for point-scoring. Doesn’t think that primacy is as much of an issue?

Cameron says science is also half-baked – like blog posts! and Henry agrees. “Everything Nature publishes is wrong” – well, provisional, and Maxine put in the necessary qualification – but in any case, a science paper is not true as is, for all time. So if we can cite papers, why not cite blog posts? (at least, I think this is where Cam is heading.) Henry’s answer is that blog posts don’t have the same consensual authority.

Austin adds in that the provisionality is quite hard to overcome in the public eye, but that’s really how it works…

Richard: Think about, what are blogs FOR? If you’re staking out ground, not necessarily the best. Blog is a discussion. (Then why don’t I get more comments to which I would be more than pleased to reply?)

Requested input from Peter: main outreach opportunities to people who use science but are not day-to-day scientists, eg patient advocacy, environmental change – they are frustrated – asked Graham Steel to speak about himself and put him on the spot, for his implication in the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy British association. Peter has made a public promise to write a manuscript tonight, starting with the pub session, about something along the lines of health and ethics.

Martin Robbins: How can you know who you are reaching? Bored with blogging session made the point that you really can’t.

(Zoe?) Journalist asked the same question she asked me at lunch: how can you judge the “top ten” science blogs and write about them? She got lightly slapped down. Richard wonders how you quantify that? Most commented? (just an unrelated argument, often. Not well-written, just controversial.) Most linked? It’s too personal to make a top-ten list. Euan on the other side said that blogs are “better” when other blogs link to them. I chipped in that I think only blog posts can be qualified this way, and perhaps a better blog is one that has a lot of better posts but it’s too personal to say, at least for the purposes of this well-intended journalist.

Some nice lady on the other side of the room who is working for British Association of Science and Engineering made a blog where encourage public to ask questions that related – and received about 3000 from all ages. To know who gets involved with their ages, they clicked their way through a questionnaire and then transferred the information onto a blog. Stuck the questions up into subject areas and then encouraged 250 scientists from around the country to answer those related to their subject. Eg. What happened before the Big Bang? see what the public was interested in.

Timo says we are about to wrap up! What barriers to respectability for science blogging? Catalogue collective action so here comes the challenge that Peter mentioned at the beginning.

How can we get senior faculty blogging in a way that is fun and valuable as a scientific activity for the community? The challenge is to get them to really set up a blog! Timo explains: get more points if the level between you and the “senior” person is greatest… First incentive. The Open Laboratory 2007 “best science writing” book… winning blog will be featured as the first entry in the 2008 version. Next incentive: Nature will pay for travel for junior and senior faculty person to go together to the next SciFoo. Cutoff date will be in early December. Must be ongoing – several entries, traction… must be a new blog.

Posted on Saturday, August 30th, 2008 at 11:02 am Categorized as:General

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.