Comments on: The Current Immaturity of Science Blogging

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:17:00 +0000

By: DBH

DBH — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:28:00 +0000

That would have been an interesting conference to attend. And I agree that the current climate of scientific research does not allow too much for “research sharing”. Being scooped would just be too high a price to pay. But blogging should be about fun, poking fun at (or being grumpy about) stuff. Pseudoscience just makes it so easy to poke fun at. There is the peer-reviewed journal world for discussing serious research.
Shame I started science blogging and quack busting a bit too late for that. Any tips for a new comer to get a blog noticed, aside from leaving comments on other blogs everywhere? Its fun to write, but it would be even more fun if people are reading it!

By: maxine

maxine — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:05:00 +0000

I think many “science blogs” are not about the research the blogger is currently doing. As mentioned in some of these comments, and other purposes involving eg education, communication.

Gimpyplog mentions concerns about priority and scooping, which are real. Many journals, though, allow sharing of research results between scientists via conferences, meetings abstracts, preprints, blogs, etc. Nature journals certainly do. What we aren’t happy about is scientists announcing their results to the media and then submitting them to us.

By: Peter in Dundee

Peter in Dundee — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:27:00 +0000

Lee well firstly when it comes to anything to do with *homeopathy* remember that it is just water. So all the study is doing is testing diclofenac with a placebo.

I would also ask what is the use of lowered swelling if it hurts more?

In addition look where the paper is published, Nature or Science or The Lancet or the BMJ it isn't. Not guaranteed but anything outside of an eminent journal should be treated as distinctly 'to be confirmed'. Ditto with those others of course but less distinctly.

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 03:24:00 +0000

I also wonder at the use of blogging within the process of science itself. I guess this is evolving and it is too early to see what form it takes.

Blogging in the defense of science, and the popularisation of science, seems to be working fairly well currently.

However, one use seems to get no mention. That is the use of blogging to communicate with ones "clients" - with the industry. Many fields of science have an extension role. My example is agricultural science where research scientists must regularly communicate with "stakeholders" via field days, farmers' days, seminars, conferences, etc. The client may be the more savvy farmer. Certainly they could be agricultural consultants and advisors. They could be representatives of fertiliser and agricultural chemical companies.

I am sure that there are similar requirements in other scientific areas and blogging could be a useful form of this communication in today's world. Clients would welcome the opportunity to also ask questions, seek clarification, etc.

This seems to me a form of science blogging which would fill a niche and actually could take off if it got a chance. The main problem I see is the corporate suspicion of employing institutes.

By: Le Canard Noir

Le Canard Noir — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:08:00 +0000

Well dr kill, one of things that is noticeable about American Science Blogging is how the politics of the right have made it necessary to mix politics and science. From a European perspective, it is amazing how many of the key issues in American politics have distorted science at their heart – usually driven by right wing ideology and its dances with religion.

By: dr kill

dr kill — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:46:00 +0000

Regarding science blogging. I see most science bloggers at scienceblogs as entertainers, not scientists. Too often their posts and the following comments veer into the Progresssive fringe. I understand they are entitled to their personal views, but damn, I tire of being beaten about the head and neck with the Lefty talking points. Politics have no place in scientific inquiry.

By: LeeT

LeeT — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:33:00 +0000

How does an uninformed lay person distinguish between good and bad science. See, for example, the latest post on Dr Briffa’s blog:

http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2008/09/01/homeopathic-arnica-found-to-be-an-effective-post-operative-aid/

By: Muscleguy

Muscleguy — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:19:00 +0000

I think that what PZ Myers periodically does at Pharyngula in which he explains a recent paper is perhaps what scientists can blog about. I certainly take the point about the difficulties of blogging about your research and being scooped. My PhD supervisor once wrote to another scientist asking for a reagent (an antibody iirc) but made the mistake of describing what he wanted to do with it a bit too well. He never heard back, didn’t get the antibody and some months later the research he was going to do was published…

So use your blog to occasionally do a public journal club, or encourage your people to do it as an adjunct to normal journal club. Being able to write for lay people is a useful skill when doing that summary in grant applications after all.

By: alison

alison — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:35:00 +0000

I was really interested to read this blog – thank you! I write a blog that’s hosted on my employer’s website (I teach at an NZ university). My initial intent was to do something that supported secondary school students preparing for their Scholarship exams, but it fairly quickly morphed into something wider.

I agree that there are issues associated with blogging on your own research. But blogging about research (practices, other people's publications, applications…) is rather different, I think, & it's also an excellent way to communicate with people about the nature of science as well as the science itself. (It's one reason a number of my favourite blogs are in the ScienceBlogs stable.) If I were to blog on my own work, it would certainly be post-publication

I hadn't actually thought about using blogs as a collaborative tool; I'm used to wikis for that. But I suppose that just reflects my own experiences & mindset.