Bench Press

The Crossroads of Science and Tech

The netvolution will not be televised

with 3 comments

The Internet is not the first thing people think of when they think of a technological improvement that has dramatically changed science. This is because most people think of the ‘net in terms of the services that it provides (e.g. “I found a cool science video on YouTube” or “I found my soulmate on MySpace”), the true impact of the Internet on science is a lot deeper than that, for two reasons:

  1. The Internet lets scientists access information from anywhere quickly and cheaply. Before the ‘net, you would have to make expensive long-distance phone calls/faxes or wait ridiculously long times for “snail mail” to get access to the latest scientific findings or to engage in a meaningful scientific discussion with your peers. Today, pretty much everyone has access to Google and Wikipedia (among other resources), letting scientists from all over the world quickly (and cheaply) draw upon the thinking of other scientists, regardless of their location.
  2. The Internet lets more people drive scientific discussion. With the Internet, the core of intellectual discussion no longer need be in the printed letters sections of Science or Nature, not when every scientist can have his or her own blog, Twitter account, and/or Facebook profile. Can’t find people to discuss an obscure article from Blood? Blog about it! Find the scientist who published the journal and write a comment on his Facebook wall or his blog, follow his Twitter feed, or, if you’re more old-fashioned, write him or her an email.

But, despite the great potential of the Internet for radically shifting and improving the way scientific discourse is done, many scientists are choosing not to actively participate in #2, whether it be because of a lack of familiarity with these new technologies or because of a fear of being scooped. And that is a shame. The Internet is a uniquely collaborative and social tool — meaning that it’s value comes from people being willing to both use and contribute.

Chances are if you’re reading this blog, you already understand and embrace the power of the Internet for changing how science is done and discussed. This post (and this blog) is preaching to the choir to those of you guys and gals. But, even so, we all have to endeavor to:

  • encourage scientists to blog, whether it be to help educate the public about things like vaccine safety, evolution, and global warming or to help drive discussion about exciting or informative research (e.g. with ResearchBlogging.org)
  • leave meaningful comments on science blogs — blogging when nobody seems to care is painful and not inspiring. Blogging when the only people who seem to care leave flames or spam is even more painful. Leave smart comments that push the discussion forward. It’s more interesting for the blogger, for you, and for the legions of people too shy to comment.
  • teach your fellow scientists about Twitter and social networking, because nothing helps foster a real sense of community then using tools designed to link people with one another
  • develop a Wiki for your lab — it’s easy, helps to spread information within your lab (something I’m sure your PI would love to see more of), and is a good jumping off point for demonstrating why the Internet is a powerful tool which is made only more powerful by collaboration
  • reach out to new science bloggers and Tweet-ers; it’s always difficult to try something new, and it’s even harder if you’re trying something and everyone is immediately hostile or unfriendly
  • use the power of the social Web — drink the Kool-Aid; use the blogosphere to help yourself find potential collaborators, new insights, or even new sources of information. Use Twitter to meet up with scientists with similar interests (and they don’t even have to be scientific interests — they could just be hobbies!)

My hope is that as the power of the Web becomes further developed and better established in the minds of the scientific establishment, the Internet will grow into something which dramatically improves the quality of scientific discussion and thinking rather than be relegated to the realm of those scientists who just happen to be tech geeks.

edit: per Ander’s comment, replaced “more and more” with “many”  (brain fart)

Written by ben

September 22nd, 2008 at 12:56 am

  • http://andersnorgaard.blogspot.com Anders

    What do you mean by the statement “more and more scientists are choosing not to actively participate in #2″

    The fraction of scientists blogging is shrinking?

  • http://www.benchside.com Ben

    Hi Anders,

    I don’t have data to show that the fraction of scientists blogging is shrinking, but even if it weren’t true, my point is more about quality rather than quantity:

    1. I would maintain, first, that the speed at which the fraction of scientists blogging is growing leaves much to be desired.
    2. I would also argue that the quality of scientific blogging is suffering from a general atmosphere of “I won’t contribute anything because someone will scoop me”.

    In all fairness, I probably chose the wrong word — instead of “more and more”, I probably should have used “many”.

  • http://andersnorgaard.blogspot.com Anders

    I know your feeling. But other days I am just impressed by the amount of great science blogging actually being done.

    Regardless, I agree exactly with your suggestions are perfect on what we have to do.

    Best
    Anders