My obvious biases are going to come out in this post, but it needs to be written. Bora and Anton organize this great conference every January that allows many people to get together to discuss science on the web. As always, I quite enjoyed the event, mostly cause of the social interactions, and some excellent sessions. This year I got to finally meet in person Pawel Szczesny, Steve Koch, Dr. Kiki, and Michael Habib (I am sure I’ve missed someone). Jonathan Eisen has a great post (and this funny one) about the event.
Having said that, I find something troubling. There are far too many sessions on journalism and policy, and far too little on doing science and even less on the “developer” side of things. So consider this post a call to action. Next year, we should get better representation from the geeks, people thinking about API’s, data resources, doing science online. There were sessions along those lines this time, but far too few. We need more crystallographers, sequencing gurus, bioinformaticians, software folks, etc there to discuss how the web is changing the way they do things, or how core it is to their work today. These are the people who would take an API and make something with it; the kind who would develop something like Annotatr, or run with the kind of idea expressed in this thread. These are also the kind of people who are going to drive the applications of the future that help people collaborate and make sense of data, the kind that Anil Dash wants to reach out to with Expert Labs. One of the sessions I want to organize next year is “Small things, loosely connected” about APIs, distributed applications, etc. Should be fun if the right people show up. I leave you with a thread on Friendfeed
Related articles by Zemanta
- scio10: Protocols: Gov’t 2.0 (scienceblogs.com)
- Hack to Hacker: Rise of the Journalist-Programmer (valleywag.gawker.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=51ae6641-d7fe-499c-9964-b3d101fd4a8a)
4 Comments
To have full success in science we need to integrate 3 biological theory, network, mutation and free radical. Don't be an illusionist that simply a gig, person who is highly intelligent will make sense of all that chaos. The problem is that science today is way to segregated, chemists care about selling drugs, biologist often ignore chemistry as expanding in space trows us in uncertainty. How do we deal with it? We need to bridge physics concepts with biological phenomena through comprehensive chemistry as we made teh first step of sequence technology, but that is no sufficient. Gentlemen and Ladies, this is just the beginning..Biotechnology must evolve, and integral part would play teh advancement of physical methods in spacial dynamic analysis although lagging, they come slow but secure. Then we can have parallel world interfering at some moment, when someone will say. Hey we can determine it. Why live in a chaos? It may be just that simple, but what eyes see is what mind chooses. The gigs are coming, and they are going to hit the world with a power you have never imagined. Just give them a chance, provide the environment and the output will be there.
I am not sure I quite understand what you're getting at, but I've been in more than enough situations where just the mix of 20 smart people from very different backgrounds have come up with some killer discussion topics and had a ton of discussion.
Science Online 2010 – Where are the geeks?
Science Online 2010 – Where are the geeks?
One Trackback
[...] But what’s perhaps more telling is what wasn’t a major theme of the conference, as pointed out by attendee Deepak Singh: There are far too many sessions on journalism and policy, and far too little on doing science . . [...]