Is it becoming dangerous to NOT blog?

It wasn't so long ago that the big discussion about scientists blogging was whether or not it would hurt your career. Granted, some the examples used involved personal content that would have been problematic on any platform. Still, many scientists chose to blog anonymously, even for the most uncontroversial scientific musings.

Recently I have noticed a change in the tone. The question doesn't seem to be "Is blogging bad?" anymore but rather "Is blogging a waste of time?". Often this involves the rather ironic situation of naysayers using a blog to express their opinion that blogging is a waste of time. There are many examples of this but a particularly controversial discussion took place on Nature Network recently.

And then yesterday I came across a particularly good example of why blogging is not a waste of effort. I was checking my Sitemeter referring links and found a few from Nature Chemistry. Unfortunately the article is toll access but I was able to get my hands on a copy. It was Michelle Francl's article about the history of the periodic table and all the creative ways that people have used to demonstrate order in the elements.

Michelle used my blog post about Andrew Lang's 3D representation of the periodic table in Second Life as a reference for this type of table. This is a very short (4 sentence) post but it has the key elements of a good reference - answers to who? what? and where?. That is enough information to visit the exhibit and contact the creator for a copy.

Now Andy and I are witing this up as part of a larger article on chemistry in Second Life (see draft here). If that article had been completed and published, it is likely that Michelle would have used that as a primary reference. But it can take a really long time for the journal publication process to reach completion. If I had not blogged this I am sure Michelle could have adapted her article and found another similar reference.

The point is that mainstream scholarship (Nature Chemistry is certainly an example of that) is able and willing to use Web2.0 references when these are the most appropriate.

There are very few examples of mindblowingly original ideas. People working in related areas tend to come up with similar ideas. In a world where any of your competitors can blog their ideas as soon as they think of them, hoarding ideas might be the more dangerous choice.

It doesn't matter what you think about the professional status of blogs. It doesn't matter most scientists don't blog. The only thing that matters is that at least one of your competitors is willing to blog their research and that the traditional journals in your field are willing to accept blog posts (and other Web2.0 publication formats) as valid references.

Web 2.0 in Science: Success or Failure?

Timo Hannay recently gave a talk "Scientific Researchers and Web 2.0: Social Not Working?", which is reproduced in this Nascent blog post.

This is a sobering review of the state of social software in science and he lists several roadblocks to its widespread adoption. It is important to counterbalance the almost unavoidable hype that emerges from the enthusiasm of those energized by a movement.

However, it can be a tricky endeavor to attempt to define success or failure, especially within systems that are evolving rapidly.

Are you a failure if you only get 10% of your proposals funded? What about a telemarketer who has a 95% failure rate of making a sale from dialing the phone? Are you a failure if you send a paper to Nature and get turned down 90% of the time?

The way I see it, Web2.0 technologies are just communication vehicles and should be measured using similar metrics to the telephone, email, lunch meetings, conferences, talking to somebody during a flight, etc.

You don't decide to use a telephone based on an analysis of the number of people on the other side of the line - you use it when you need to communicate. And sometimes that communication may be intended primarily for your future self. I absolutely agree with Ben Good that you should blog even if there is a chance that nobody will read it:

Well, as one graduate student that continues to blog even though only 2 or 3 people read most of my posts (namely my Dad and occasionally, if she is bored, my wife), I feel compelled to say that yes, some people and even some scientists will continue to blog even if no one ends up listening at all.

For me, keeping a blog is a very convenient way to write-up my annual reports and keep track of my progress. But, as a bonus, if others read it and give me feedback or collaborate, all the better. And this is where the sweetest part of the icing is found. As Rich Apodaca mentions, it comes down to jobs, funding and collaborations.

I have personally experienced very good examples of that. My recent trip to the UK (generously funded by Cameron Neylon) would have never happened without my active participation with Web2.0 tools. The same goes for the last paper (submitted to JoVE - Precedings version here) and proposal that I submitted.

The best reason for blogging is self-interest.

Andre Brown's Talk on Science2.0

From Bora Zivkovic's A Blog around the Clock:

Here is a video of SPARC-ACRL Forum '08 on 12 January, 2008 at the Pennyslvania Convention Center in Philadelphia:

The SPARC-ACRL Forum at ALA '08 entitled "Working with the Facebook generation: Engaging students views on access to scholarship." Panelists discuss the merits of student activism, patent reform, blogs as a communication medium for scientists, and students as active members of a discussion about the right to access information for scholarly work. Features Andre Brown, Nelson Pavlosky, Stephanie Wang, and Kimberly Douglas as panelists.

Pay particular attention to Andre Brown and minutes 42-55 as he talks about science blogs and Science 2.0 including
mentions of all the usual suspects (Jean-Claude Bradley, Rosie Redfield, Reed Cartwright, Bill Hooker, Peter Suber and me):

SPARC-ACRL Forum '08 from Matt Agnello on Vimeo.

Andre Brown does a really good job of summarizing the key points of the potential of social software in communicating primary research.

UsefulChem gets a mention around minute 50 and Gus Rosania is used as an example of how blogging about science can facilitate collaboration (minute 52).

Back from ASIST Open Science Panel

Yesterday (Oct 23, 2007) I participated in a panel on Open Science and Science Blogging at the ASIST conference in Milwaukee.

The full three presentations are available here: streaming Flash. (63:44)

Following a brief introduction by Phil Edwards,

• Bora Zivkovic kicks off with his presentation "The Many Flavors of Science Blogging" ppt followed by mine
• Jean-Claude Bradley "UsefulChem: An Open Notebook Science Project" ppt (starts at 18:35)
• then Janet Stemwedel's "Social and Scientific Implications of Scientific Blogging" ppt (starts at 41:30).

Bora provided an overview of science blogging with plenty of good examples. I provided details of how we use blogs and wikis to do drug development and collaborate openly with the UsefulChem project. Janet wrapped up touching on the importance of blogs that chronicle the experiences of researchers and how the system works.

A few people took some really good notes:
Christina Pikas
Ken Varnum
Stephanie Willen Brown

This conference was a great opportunity to get together with Bora, Janet and Christina Pikas over sausages and sauerkraut. Hopefully we'll meet up again at Bora's NC Science Blogging conference in January.

The half-hour question session was also recorded and I'll provide a link when it is available.

Open Science at ASIST in Milwaukee

Well I'm off to Milwaukee tomorrow for the ASIST conference.

I am participating in a panel on Open Science on Tuesday October 22 at 8:30. Anyone can add questions for us to answer on the wiki. Here is an abstract with a few questions already posted:

Opening Science to All: Implications of Blogs and Wikis for Social and Scholarly Scientific Communication (SIG STI, SIG BWP)
Bora Zivkovic, Jean-Claude Bradley, Janet Stemwedel, Phillip Edwards and K.T. Vaughan

A growing number of scientists are turning to Web2.0 communication tools such as blogs and wikis to provide open channels for their social and scholarly discourse. Because of these tools, scientists are increasingly able to share data, results, and analysis of research (scholarly communication) with distant, and sometimes unknown peers, and are also able to enter the realm of scientific commentary (social communication) with the general public. While many science bloggers focus on purely social commentary on science, others include conference announcements and reports, book reviews, brief discussion of “failed” experiments, and non-publishable research findings. Within this environment there is a strong awareness that readers include – and may preferentially be – non-scientists, perhaps even nonspecialist skeptics about established theories. This session is not only concerned with presenting a state of the blog for science communication, but also with thinking about the impact of “plain English” science writing on both society and on science.

Question: Is it really a good thing to let anyone who thinks they have a scientific breakthrough have access to free, open, public, Googleable media?
Question: What if I make a mistake in my data, never fix it, no one catches it, and then someone dies because a medical decision was based on my "findings"? Isn't this exactly why we have formal peer review in formal publications?
Question: Who is the audience for science blogs and wikis anyway? Scientists or laypeople?
Question: Can you get published if you've already posted your results to your blog/wiki?

I hope to see some of you there!

Science Bloggers SFLO Session

Berci led yesterday's (Oct 15, 2007) SciFoo Lives On session on Science Bloggers.

Sandra Porter, Bora Zivkovic and I (UsefulChem) discussed why and how we blog about science.
Bora really had a lot of problems with his video card and I was impressed that he persisted to deliver a great presentation and participate. I've been there so I know how frustrating that can be. Unfortunately a lot of people assume that is the typical Second Life experience and give up.

Berci live blogged the event here and did a tremendous job in representing the flow of the session. The transcript and other links are here.