In a previous post, I remarked on the cultural changes required for scientists to adopt new trends such as mashups and widgets. Having been in the Seattle area for a bit now, the stark contrast between the tech community and the bio community jumps out at me. Scientists are definitely a more conservative bunch, which I suppose I knew, but hanging around in the blogosphere with other like minded science geeks, one tends to forget. I know there are those who think this is a passing fad, but one only needs to look around. I am a believer.
One argument that one could make, and I have as well, about how current internet technologies apply to science is that science requires a level of expertise that makes the Long Tail characteristics of the current internet revolution somewhat inapplicable. I think the problem is that people misunderstand how terms such as “user-generated content” and other similar buzz phrases have a different meaning for science. It is not about anyone with a handheld video camera uploading a video onto YouTube, but rather the ability of a wider number of scientists to get heard. Science is not an equal opportunity field, whether it is grant money, the ability to get your work published in an elite journal or even speaking at scientific conferences. The internet and related technologies are a means for a number of scientists to bypass those barriers. With journals like PLoS One, blogs, wikis, Connotea and other resources now available (or soon to become available), modern web technology has the potential (still largely untapped) of taking opportunity out to the tail, allowing a number of niches to flourish and more people to get their scientific voices heard. I encourage all scientists, whether they be chemists, biologists, physics, mathematicians or what have you to embrace the conversational aspects of the web. Openness and discussion will only serve to improve science, and, IMO, actually improve the quality of what people do, since so many people will be looking at it and providing constructive criticism. It will require a significant cultural shift, and I think it will happen, but too slowly for my liking
… and while we are on the subject of resources, for the umpteenth time, I would like to plug the Google Custom Search Engine. It is a wonderful resource as I have found out. Of course the best example of Google Co-op in use can be found here
Technorati Tags: Long Tail, Science, Blogging, Science 2.0, Google, Search
6 Comments
You are absolutely right about the differences in culture. The last time I spoke about our Open Notebook work, several of the chemists in the audience could not understand why we would jeopardize our ability to patent our work by publishing raw data. That is simply not part of other cultures like astrophysicists or sociologists. But even there, the issue of peer validation is key for tenure and promotion. So in the short term there will be few who truly embrace Open Science. But I don’t think it will take many to have a large impact.
Thanks for linking to one of my Google Co-op site. Indeed it took me a while to try it out – there are so many gadgets to play with. But I think this one will get widely used in all kinds of unexpected ways.
That is a response I have heard often. It will change. Proprietary APIs and keeping things close to the vest were part of the tech culture and see what’s happened there.
To some extent the fault lies in the grant and patent systems. At the very least they provide a mental barrier. Hopefully, in time there will be enough momentum to overcome those barriers. You are right, it won’t take many.
Not publishing data also can serve as an invitation to bad quality research. For a simple example, published in Nature, see
http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3200.htm
Not publishing data also can serve as an invitation to bad quality research. For a simple example, published in Nature, see
http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3200.htm
That example about the Nature article is dead on. I have also contacted authors to try to reconcile our inability to reproduce results that they published many years ago and it has not helped in most cases. I don’t think that there is usually an intent to deceive. It is just that publication in an article format requires that a neat and tidy story be told. There is nothing wrong with stories and simple messages but that should not be the only way of communicating science. First put the raw data out there so people can use it then, when appropriate, link to parts of it to tell stories in article format.
That example about the Nature article is dead on. I have also contacted authors to try to reconcile our inability to reproduce results that they published many years ago and it has not helped in most cases. I don't think that there is usually an intent to deceive. It is just that publication in an article format requires that a neat and tidy story be told. There is nothing wrong with stories and simple messages but that should not be the only way of communicating science. First put the raw data out there so people can use it then, when appropriate, link to parts of it to tell stories in article format.
3 Trackbacks
[...] Further readingThe onslaught against scientific publicationAn open scientific futurePLoS One – The implications“Social” scienceBiology, search and UdellThe scientific conversation – Culture wars [...]
[...] Further Reading: The onslaught against scientific publication The scientific conversation – The culture wars [...]
[...] Further reading: An open scientific future The scientific conversation – culture wars [...]