I've been watching a bit of the kerfuffle over at Daniel MacArthur's blog Genetic Future. Seems Daniel got into a bit of trouble when he tweeted and liveblogged about findings presented at the Cold Spring Harbor Biology of Genomes meeting. Normally, when members of the press attend the meeting they have to have press permissions and request the permission of each presenter to report their findings. Daniel, as a blogger who apparently does not identify as a journalist, didn't think this applied to him and released 140 character-length details of the meeting out into the ether. The end result is that bloggers now also have to obtain permission from scientists to publicly broadcast details of their work.
Daniel has some concerns. He's worried that:
Now, I consider myself to be a blogger too. I'm hipper than most (and also hotter than most) and I am totally down with the scene. But this one time I have to say to my beloved Scibling, tough luck dude. If you can't get permission to blog about it, then tuck this tiny gem of awesome science away in your mind until it becomes public. But, don't fuck with my data.
A scientific conference for me is a safe place where I get to interact with professional colleagues I have not necessarily seen in a long time. I get to bring them novel data, discuss the implications, and probe them for ideas on how I might progress and how we might collaborate. I don't attend scientific conferences to report my findings to the public. I attend to report my data to my peers and network.
Sometimes when I attend a conference, I hang my hat on a sample size of one or two. I report an interesting hypothesis, show a little pilot data, and interpret the findings with the knowledge that it's all pilot data. If I were ready to present the shit to the public, I'd write and publish it. You know, in a journal. In these cases I am confident that my collaborators, the audience for who this work is intended, can look at my data and see that I have not done all the necessary controls and that my study is underpowered, but that they can also help me cook up the next round of experiments.
Daniel writes:
Really.
Daniel links to a thoughtful post written by Ed Yong on the non-issue of blogger versus journalist. I agree that it is a non-issue. I want to see journalists and bloggers at conferences talking about all the science that is ready to talk about. But, if it's that much a non-issue then bloggers can ask for permission too. I like to talk about my science. I like to see my science discussed. But, as the architect of my science, I need to have the discretion to decide the venue in which my science appears.
The answer isn't to ask participants to put a blog-safe icon on posters so that you don't have to interact with the scientists and can crank out as many tweets and posts as fast as possible. It's to talk to the scientists, ask them about their work, and learn the reasonable interpretation of their findings.
Otherwise, I'm not gonna lie, I'm gonna start clamming up.
Daniel has some concerns. He's worried that:
...it's not always clear in advance which talks will be interesting enough to discuss online, and finding speakers before their presentation to ask them for permission can be both logistically challenging and socially awkward (especially in the cases where it requires explaining to the presenter what this "blogging" business is all about).No, no, no, little muffin. If you want scientists to be friendly towards the idea of blogging and social networking, then you have to take the time to explain it and its value. Otherwise, when they Google themselves (cause we all do) and find their stuff Twittered and ScienceBlogged, they are going to be even more skeptical than they are now. Scientists are smart people, but treating them as outsiders who are not able to comprehend the value of a new technology (cause, you know, we like new technology) is exactly the wrong approach with us.
Now, I consider myself to be a blogger too. I'm hipper than most (and also hotter than most) and I am totally down with the scene. But this one time I have to say to my beloved Scibling, tough luck dude. If you can't get permission to blog about it, then tuck this tiny gem of awesome science away in your mind until it becomes public. But, don't fuck with my data.
A scientific conference for me is a safe place where I get to interact with professional colleagues I have not necessarily seen in a long time. I get to bring them novel data, discuss the implications, and probe them for ideas on how I might progress and how we might collaborate. I don't attend scientific conferences to report my findings to the public. I attend to report my data to my peers and network.
Sometimes when I attend a conference, I hang my hat on a sample size of one or two. I report an interesting hypothesis, show a little pilot data, and interpret the findings with the knowledge that it's all pilot data. If I were ready to present the shit to the public, I'd write and publish it. You know, in a journal. In these cases I am confident that my collaborators, the audience for who this work is intended, can look at my data and see that I have not done all the necessary controls and that my study is underpowered, but that they can also help me cook up the next round of experiments.
Daniel writes:
Science benefits from the open communication of data to the broadest possible audience (not only scientists, but also the wider community).I'm not so sure. We're all here at ScienceBlogs because we like to discuss science. But, the types of stuff I'll speculate about in the safety of my scientific circle and the types of stuff I'd speculate about it I knew my speculation were about to become public is different. Worrying about where my speculation is going to appear will only make me more guarded. I like the idea that open communication will help to progress science, but there has to be a limit. Is it appropriate to ask a scientist to turn their experimental direction, a direction upon which jobs and labs are built, over to the public to plan out? Come on. Daniel can't mean that. Really.
Really.
Daniel links to a thoughtful post written by Ed Yong on the non-issue of blogger versus journalist. I agree that it is a non-issue. I want to see journalists and bloggers at conferences talking about all the science that is ready to talk about. But, if it's that much a non-issue then bloggers can ask for permission too. I like to talk about my science. I like to see my science discussed. But, as the architect of my science, I need to have the discretion to decide the venue in which my science appears.
The answer isn't to ask participants to put a blog-safe icon on posters so that you don't have to interact with the scientists and can crank out as many tweets and posts as fast as possible. It's to talk to the scientists, ask them about their work, and learn the reasonable interpretation of their findings.
Otherwise, I'm not gonna lie, I'm gonna start clamming up.
Humanities & Social Science
Technology
Comments
Oh Daniel-
No sir. Meetings like the Gordon Research Conferences... and I believe CSH meetings as well have an express policy that the data presented is not to be made public. This policy is specifically designed to encourage people to present unpublished data. Full Stop.
I want to continue to go to meetings where people feel comfortable to present unpublished data- I am a bit tired of meetings where published findings get regurgitated... over and over again...
So- there is a good reason for this policy, you might want to stick to it.
Posted by: drdrA | June 17, 2009 7:59 PM
A-FUCKING-MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If scientists begin to fear that some blogdouche in the audience is twittering, and tweeting, and Facebooking, and whathefuckeverelse about their PRELIMINARY UNPUBLISHED DATA (which is exactly what the conferences want people to present), then they are going to clam the fuck up, and eliminate a major benefit of attending conferences.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | June 17, 2009 8:04 PM
If there is an express policy, made known to all attendees beforehand, that the meeting and the presentations are not public and not to be considered published then so be it. That is fine. Of course, that means the data _isn't_ published; someone else may legitimately scoop you. You can't have the "secret data" cake and eat "first to publish" too.
If there was no such policy, however, then he did nothing wrong. If somebody is standing up in a non-secret forum (assuming there was no such policy, remember) and telling a lot of people about something, then don't act surprised if some those people tell others in turn. And once they do - even if it's by the best of intentions - the proverbial cat is out of the bag.
If you really want to be secret then make all attendees specifically agree to such a policy, and limit the attendees to those willing to do so. The reality today is that the gray zone between completely private and exhibitionistically public that people have relied on in these kind of cases has shrunk a lot. There is much less room for manoeuvre between telling nobody and telling everybody today. This is not something we can reverse; this is something we will have to learn to live with. And we will.
Posted by: Janne | June 17, 2009 8:43 PM
I think this is going to depend on a particular scientific community's attitude about the role and value of conference presentations. I think the geosciences must think about conferences differently than bio-med does - both of my main conferences issue tons of press releases associated with the meeting, put all abstracts online (for everyone, not just members, to see), and have some presentations available online. (One conference encourages everyone to put presentations online; most people don't, though I suspect it's more because we're too lazy to upload stuff than because we're worried about being scooped.) We cite conference abstracts in journal articles (though it's better to cite articles). After last year's AGU, I even had a grad school friend contact me to try to get me to blog promoting the research he presented.
Daniel's experience is going to make me more cautious about blogging conferences now - I'm going to ask the conference organizers and other geologists what they think - but it sounds like the culture of our fields is different.
Posted by: Kim Hannula | June 17, 2009 8:44 PM
Since there are different cultural norms in different sub-fields, probably at this stage the safest course of action is to assume nothing (i.e. don't present stuff you don't want blogged and don't blog without permission).
It seems to me, that if you're going to present at AACR (or any other 30,000+ person conference), given the number of regular journalists, you should probably assume everything is public.
Some smaller conferences might well benefit from codifying privacy-unless-given-permission.
But I tend to think that even though there are definitely benefits to semi-private communications at small meetings, that doesn't mean it's always worth the cost. A recent malaria meeting I attended had all the talks recorded for later web access (they were always chasing speakers around with permission forms, so obviously they were on the up-and-up). If you think about where malaria is a problem and who would have the money to attend the meeting, it seems almost wrong *not* to make it publicly available- even in all the raw scientific glory of ugly gels, low Ns and not-yet-there P values.
Posted by: becca | June 17, 2009 9:11 PM
Dear Comrade PhysioProf,
You need to chill the fuck out.
Best,
GL
Posted by: GL | June 17, 2009 9:13 PM
I think the cultures are very different. I have only once presented a complete study and never a published work. Some conferences have a requirement that a study can't be published which means that you get, as a result, prelim data.
I just think that if bloggers want to change the way scientists feel about the media then they need to be willing to engage them, and try to understand the culture and the norms of the conference they are attending, rather than taking the attitude that every scrap of information out there is their's for the posting.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | June 17, 2009 9:17 PM
I may have to write a whole post about this one day, but just wanted to say, for now, that this is the most clearly stated and meaningful post on this topic to date and (as much as I am usually OpenEverythingEvangelistNozdrulType) that I largely agree with you. Who knows what the scientific culture will be in 50 years, but this is today, 2009, and we need to behave appropriately and not turn friends into foes.
Posted by: Coturnix | June 17, 2009 11:03 PM
Question: how, exactly, would one go about asking permission to blog about someone's research and maintain pseudonymity, particularly when we're talking about professional colleagues?
Seems really high-risk to me....
Posted by: JLK | June 18, 2009 12:47 AM
One thing that "data should be free" types (and I am one) tend to forget is that their is an incentive for THEM to tweet OTHERS' data.
Bloggers/Twits gain notoriety and followers by being first to publicize interesting information, in this case, information generated by others. Journalists have a similar incentive, of course.
So, we "data should be shared" types need to make sure we are not screwing over others to get ourselves public attention, in addition to whatever other Noble Motives we have for posting conference information.
Seems like there might be an ethical issue in here somewhere.
Posted by: microfool | June 18, 2009 6:12 AM
Hey guys,
I think there's some serious confusion here about what I've actually been suggesting here.
I accept that some conferences have a closed policy regarding data release, and in fact I have defended the right of conferences to have such policies in the face of fairly strenuous opposition. In the case of CSHL the policy for blogging was not clear at the time I covered it (although in hindsight I was naive not to guess what that policy would be), but it has now been clarified and I respect that.
Isis, the first half of your post suggests that I am deeply opposed to seeking permission from presenters to blog about their work, and indeed that first quote (viewed in isolation from the rest of my post) does give that impression. This isn't the case. I agree whole-heartedly that the ideal situation would be for bloggers to approach each and every scientist at the meeting, explain the nature and value of blogging, and explicitly request their permission to cover their presentation. However, this approach is not always logistically feasible, so I am suggesting an alternative: that (especially in conferences where the official policy is "don't tweet unless given permission") speakers who are willing to have their talk discussed online put an icon in their first slide to indicate this fact.
As a handy side-effect of this approach, of course, there would hopefully be some passive dissemination of the concept that social media coverage of conferences does actually exist, and that it may be a world that scientists should actually try to engage with. Eventually I would hope that such consciousness will permeate to the extent that all conference organisers release formal policies that are made clear to all attendees and presenters. In some cases that will be "tweet away", while in others it will be "don't tweet anything, ever" - and both are fine, so long as that policy is clear and widely disseminated.
In the meantime, let me make this very clear: from now on, if a conference has a policy that formally states that either bloggers or journalists need to seek explicit permission from speakers before writing about their work, I will follow that policy to the letter and encourage others to do so as well. If no such policy exists I will seek advance permission from speakers where possible (and if the conference is small and feels private, in every case), and if this isn't possible I will restrict my coverage to (1) material already available in press releases or online abstract books; and (2) broad conclusions (as opposed to specific details) that will be of interest to my readers but highly unlikely to be seen by anyone as violating the presenter's sacred data.
If Dr Isis gives a talk at a meeting I attend, and states that the data she is presenting is preliminary, then I would never blog it (even if she never explicitly states that the talk is confidential) unless I've had a chance to discuss her work with her afterwards and clarified the issue.
An interesting aside: I wrote a formal meeting report for the journal Genome Medicine on the same CSHL conference that caused this fuss. For the report I wrote pretty much the same broad brush-stroke outline of the meeting that I had described in my blog posts, but this time I sought written permission from every single presenter I mentioned. In every case (bar one, whose work I hadn't actually blogged) the presenter gave me permission to discuss their data in an article that is now freely available online; which illustrates, I think, that most presenters are in fact happy to have the broad conclusions of their research discussed online even for presentations at a "closed" meeting. I don't mention this to justify not seeking permission (I've made my position on that clear above), but rather to emphasise that not every scientist feels the same way Dr Isis does about their presented data.
Posted by: Daniel MacArthur | June 18, 2009 6:19 AM
microfool,
That's a good point, and one I try to keep in mind. However, one of the useful things about scientist bloggers is that in general they both understand the desire of other scientists to keep some data private, and have good career reasons for wanting to stay on the good side of their peers. They also tend to be extremely amenable to quick emails asking them to delete or clarify something they've written.
Bear in mind that professional science journalists have precisely the same desire to find a sensational story, but don't have the same sort of peer-group restraint displayed by scientist bloggers (of course they have other professional reasons for respecting data privacy, but these won't apply in all situations).
Posted by: Daniel MacArthur | June 18, 2009 6:33 AM
Using one's identity as a professional colleague to gain insider access to substantive scientific content, and then to blog pseudonymously about that content is completely unethical.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | June 18, 2009 7:49 AM
Dr. Isis,
You completely took Daniel's post out of context. I understand you have a blog to feed, buzz to generate, and an enormous ego to massage, but blogging outrage when none is warranted is just annoying.
Posted by: Brian | June 18, 2009 9:23 AM
Oh, don't be so dramatic, Brian. I don't think it is either irrational or "outrage" to ask someone who is attending a conference to report on a conference to respect the mores of the conference. That includes the fact that people discuss data that is not ready for public consumption yet. I also do think that it is improper to put the responsibility on the presenter to let bloggers know when our stuff is ok to discuss. We don't do that for the print media, and I simply can't forsee this happening.
I like this notion of needing to generate buzz. I think it is adorable, although I will admit that I do have a huge ego. My ego is totally warranted considering how unbelievably hot my science and I are, but it is huge none the less.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | June 18, 2009 9:50 AM
Such a polite and open group ....
The debate points out an area where science and scientists have fallen behind. Blogging, twittering, and any number of new ways to get information out to the wider world have been here for a long time now and are not going away.
For that reason alone scientists, researchers, and conference organizers have to address the question of what is fair game and what isn't at a conference.
There is no blanket policy or solution and it should be factored into conference planning along with abstract submissions, poster presentations, and what time coffee is available. It also means a dose of common sense.
Communications whether in the science arena, on the political stage, or any other endeavour can go astray. Just because there are a few examples of it going off the rails don't tar and feather the whole concept. It is 2009 and there is a fundamental change in what people expect. Acknowledge it, figure it out, and make it work for everyone.
And I'll be at the BIO World Congress in Montreal with media credentials along with my organization hat and will politely ask what is fair game and then at the Metabolomics Conference in August with dual and open identities as well.
I'll buy you an off-the-record beer and pass on the wisdom of a journalist turned communications wonk.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Spear | June 18, 2009 9:51 AM
I have to ditto Brian's comment from above, first and foremost (#14 I think). After following all of @dgmacarthur's posts on twitter and his blogs, I think that he's the first one to support the "no blogging allowed" if indeed that's the conference policy.
that said, my additional disagreement (beyond your unnecessary use of profanities in your blog), with your statements is that live blogging constitutes "effing with your data." 1) The world on twitter or those reading the Genetic Future (or other) blogs, are not your main competitors. Your competitors, those who will scoop you, are listening to your talk. 2) VERY VERY VERY VERY rarely does anyone really put up data that is truly hot off the presses and not moving deeply towards publication where they feel that they are really ahead of the curve because at least in my field competition is simply to hot, 3) I think that you absolutely cannot make broad judgements about the legitimacy/need for live blogging for all fields when certain fields, like genomics, have built a model of open data, etc.
we are moving into a new area of communication where tweeting, blogging, texting on their cell phones to the competitors down the hall etc are going to be active forms of media and we need to embrace them, not clam up.
There is something called scientific integrity- and scientists, science writers, science bloggers, conference attendees must subscribe to. As with everything in life, some will not. Rigor in reporting (via twitter or otherwise) should be considered paramount and while we must demand that now, only supporting those folks who live-blog with integrity and consistent rigor, it will take time for us to work out the kinks. But we need an open, progressive dialogue for that to happen. Not one that supports profanity and unnecessary angst.
Posted by: kenna | June 18, 2009 10:33 AM
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Yeah, profanity is the scourge of mankind. If it weren't for profanity, there'd be unicorns and rainbows streaming out of all our motherfucking asses!
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | June 18, 2009 10:52 AM
Never said I think profanity is always wrong. Most friends would suggest, unfortunately, that I have the mouth of a trucker.
That said, there is a time and a place for it... and I think that often profanity can ultimately result in a lack of legitimacy... in this case I clearly think so. I just don't think it's needed here and the author's need for "buzz" and her clear self-absorption (whether real or feigned for the purpose of this blog persona), isn't helped by it IMHO.
Posted by: Kenna | June 18, 2009 11:03 AM
If the profanity offends you, don't read the shit. We're all adults here.
But, on the issue of my data. I am not worried about competition of the scooping of my data. If my data is going to get "scooped", it's going to be done by someone at the conference, not a reader of Twitter. My opinion is based on the fact that I do the type of research that noone is going to be able to recreate in a few months. That's a luxury I enjoy and I appreciate that this may not be an opinion held by all scientists
The issue for me is in the interpretation. If I present an n of 1 or 2, I might tell my colleagues, "I think these data show that my fancy new technique is going to cure cancer and end poverty and global warming." But, that's because there is a common understanding among the attendees at my kinds of conference that often data are preliminary or pilot. If I knew someone were sitting there, tweeting my every word to the public about an experiment that is not complete, then I would be much, much more guarded about the kinds of things I say.
I'm hip. I blog. I tweet. That said, I only advocate for a common understanding. If scientists have to start censoring themselves or guarding their speech because people are open to blog and tweet, then the conferences are going to lose their utility. Asking a scientist to mark which data are safe to print and which aren't is not the solution. The solution is that bloggers need to engage scientists and discuss their work with them. I would be happy to provide public appropriate interpretations of my work and explain the caveats of my finds if I were asked. But people have to ask in order to allow this type of discourse to happen.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | June 18, 2009 11:09 AM
Oh noes!!!! Kenna thinks I lack legitimacy. I will, at this very moment, change the tone of my blog so that all you bitches fine people take me more seriously.
I find it laughable that one person can, in the same comment, tell me that I need to get with the present and completely accept the pervasiveness of Twitter and blogs and also tell me that my choice of language is unacceptable.
I mean, isn't "fuck" just the new "gosh darn?"
HA HA HA
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | June 18, 2009 11:13 AM
again, read what I wrote. Never said I was offended. Just said it doesn't help your case to use it for 'effect', to prove your hipness. Just saying that I don't think it helps your argument.
Next again if you read my post, my point was that people who write about science should be kept to the same high standards as anyone who writes about science- whether they are tweeting it, blogging it, writing a NYT article or writing from Nature News. My point is that good science communicators will be able to distinguish and communicate prelim data from ready-for-the-presses data. We have to work as a community to determine how best to facilitate science communication without supporting misinformation, misconceptions, etc. Not saying that will be easy, but think it can be done as the saavy, rigorous writers & scientists like Daniel MacArthur, Chris Gunter, etc who are blogging/tweeting/etc post critically. The folks who don't won't be followed for long.
Not sure how the threat of clamming up is evidence of promoting a common understanding.
Posted by: kenna | June 18, 2009 11:16 AM
BINGO.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | June 18, 2009 11:31 AM
Right. Because science journalists have typically always done a fantastic job getting the story straight, especially when it comes to biomedical data. In an ideal world, bloggers and journalists would always be responsible and present the data accurately, but that's not reality. Is it? I am much, much more guarded with preliminary data than a completed study and I think that is responsible on my part. I still cannot see how it is irresponsible for me to ask someone who wants to write about my preliminary data in a venue where the goal is for scientists to interact (not for scientists to communicate to the public) to ask me first.
The idea of clamming up is not a "threat", it's a reality. If I don't know if my data are going to be reported back to the public formally when they are not ready for such reporting, I'm just not going to talk about them. That is very, very, very bad for science. Very bad.
Finally, if your inability to read someone's thoughts critically are hindered because you are so distracted by the use of the work "fuck," then you are EXACTLY the type of person I don't want tweeting or blogging my data.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | June 18, 2009 11:35 AM
They have so! Science journalists always take a very even-keeled balanced approach to describing new advances in the biomedical sciences, describing in detail all of the qualifications, limitations, and nuances of the studies they report on.
This is because they and their editors know that this kind of balanced coverage is much more popular and interesting to readers/listeners/watchers than "COFFEE CAUSES CANCER!!!1111!!ELEVNTY!111!!!", "RED WINE LIVE FOREVER!!111!!11!BAJILLION!111!", "SCIENTSIS DISCOVER GRAVE THREAT TO YOUR CHILDREN!!111!!INFINFITY!111!!!!"
In fact, the local teevee news reporters are the best at avoiding sensationalizing biomedical research, because they have seen firsthand how sensationalistic coverage of murder, rape, prostitutes, and the sex practices of TEENAGERS is really, really bad for ratings, and drives their viewers to PBS and C-SPAN.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | June 18, 2009 11:45 AM
Goddess, my mortal brain does not understand. Do you want people to ask you first or not? And if you want them to ask first or (on some occasions) engage non-peers in a conversation, then why is an icon or bee antennae such a bad idea? More precisely, given there are different cultures, *kinds* of meetings, and sessions within a conference - why not simply label them as open or closed in advance?
Posted by: PeggyOh | June 18, 2009 12:11 PM
Using one's identity as a professional colleague to gain insider access to substantive scientific content, and then to blog pseudonymously about that content is completely unethical.
That's crap. It is only relevant if one is at a meeting or in a situation in which it is explicitly secretive. If you are at the type of meeting, say SfN or Experimental Biology, that is so large that huge numbers of your colleagues had access to the same info on a poster or presentation it is still "insider access" but only to a degree. No ethical problem blogging if you would express the same info to any single person who did not attend the meeting.
Posted by: DrugMonkey | June 18, 2009 2:23 PM
I just do not see what is so bad about the blogger or journalist to ask first before publicizing non-published data.
The problem I see with the icon is that 1) scientists still aren't even on board with or entirely aware of blogging and 2) the point of many of these conferences (like the CSH conference where Daniel was) is not to openly discuss data with the public. It's to discuss data with each other. Do we also have to start putting "regular media safe" icons on our presentations too?
And many meetings do label themselves in advance as closed to photography and reporting, except with explicit permissions. The issue that began this whole kerfuffle is the question of whether this counts for bloggers too. I say that it does.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | June 18, 2009 4:05 PM
Once conference organizers invite media in, then the entire event is now public. When I was a working journalist if we got a press release and/or press pass then that was the end of any talk about what was allowed and what wasn't. If it is a private meeting or one where you don't want the word spread then conference organizers must keep it that way. No press releases and no calls to the media for coverage, because you can't have it both ways.
( Though I have been to conferences where certain sessions would have a closed door with 'No Media Please' in which case that should apply to bloggers as well)
Bloggers should be considered in the same context as media.
Whether you agree or disagree with the final content, subjective views about presentations, or have concerns about the writer's depth or ability that is a whole other matter and has little to do with whether blogging or tweeting should or should not happen.
But once that media release is done you are in no position to pick and choose.
This is an easy problem to solve though clearly even easier to grind your teeth over. It starts with the conference organizers or organizing committee from the moment the event is planned. Have a policy, put it in the program, exclude media if you want and get on with the content.
Posted by: Mike Spear | June 18, 2009 4:40 PM
I thought what we were discussing was the presence of actual scientists at meetings who register for those meetings as actual scientists, but who are also piping their experiences out onto publicly accessible venues on the Internet. I was under the impression that Daniel is an actual genome scientists, and registered for the CSHL meeting as such, not as a journalist/blogger/tweeter/whatthefuckever.
Is that not correct? Because I completely agree that bloggers/tweeters/twitterers/whatthefuckevers should not be treated any differently than "journalists".
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | June 18, 2009 4:47 PM
See, this is where I think we bloggers can get into trouble. We're scientists. No, we're journalists. No, we're scientists. No, we're a completely undefined entity. What was the policy for the media and other scientists? It seems that, as new creatures, we bloggers have a responsibility to be more conservative in this arena until we are told otherwise. I go back again to the fact that, as a scientist, I don't necessarily want my unpublished publicized via Twitter before my experiment is done.
And I say again, tough luck. I am tremendously put off by this notion that scientists should have to accomodate bloggers in an arena where the intent is inter-scientist communication. I am just plain ole not going to start put icons for subgroups of people that requests it on my professional communications. I've given conference presentations and I am always around for several minutes after the end. I am always right by my poster. If you want to blog about it and can't ask beforehand, take notes and ask afterwards.
I remember commenting a year ago on another blog that I thought large meetings should open their doors to journalists and let them ask permission to cover individual presenters' work as they gained permission. I think this is a very reasonable policy for journalists and bloggers. It's this notion that bloggers and scientists need not interact because it is "logistically difficult" that bothers me.
And the phrase "bloggers or journalists" bothers me. It bothers me because bloggers can register for a conference without ever having to disclose that they are there and that they might post things publicly. A journalist, however, is apparent in the crowd. It bothers me that I should have to put an icon on my stuff specifically for bloggers. If I put an icon on my poster, and then talk to a colleague who I don't know is going to tweet my shit, do I have to worry that everything I say is tweetable? If something is going to be blog safe, then it should be media safe. If the print media have to disclose their presence, then so should bloggers. They're both reporting stuff to the public.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | June 18, 2009 5:28 PM
So many interesting points in one little post!
1) Ethics: it is not ethical to deceive, even unintentionally. If you are at a conference where there is an expectation of only controlled releases of data, they you can't just pretend your tweets are excluded. You're smart, you know it ain't so (and no, I'm not accusing Mac or anyone else, just reminding us all that ethical behavior includes eschewing the easy road of feigned ignorance).
2) I love the idea you put forth that conferences allow presentation of interesting and not always well-supported hypotheses---and that this should be a "private affair". This is so different from how fake experts go about things, like those who visit my blog. They loudly announce their "theory" that vaccines cause autism, or some such, not in private to bounce off colleagues, but to all the world.
3) Your pseud---sorry, you just can't escape the ethical dilemma. The rest of the world is under no obligation to protect your pseud by changing their ways. If you think getting creds or permission would risk your pseud, you need to make a judgment regarding the value of your pseud vs the value of your story. That's life.
Posted by: PalMD | June 18, 2009 6:04 PM
Isis,
Thanks for your response.
It seems that, as new creatures, we bloggers have a responsibility to be more conservative in this arena until we are told otherwise.
Unfortunately, many of us are starting out as bloggers with little or no understanding of the ground-rules of science journalism. I thought I was being conservative in the way that I blogged the meeting, but I can see in hindsight that this was naive. I'll be more conservative in future and will encourage other bloggers to do the same for presentations including original data.
And I say again, tough luck. I am tremendously put off by this notion that scientists should have to accomodate bloggers in an arena where the intent is inter-scientist communication. I am just plain ole not going to start put icons for subgroups of people that requests it on my professional communications.
I'm puzzled why you see this as a request directed at you personally. If you don't want your talk blogged, or if you don't like the idea of the icon, just don't use it! Why would you be "put off" by the notion that - in the transient period while conference organisers develop specific policies on blogging - there might be some scientists who do want to encourage blog coverage of their work?
If you want to blog about it and can't ask beforehand, take notes and ask afterwards.
Sure, I'd actively encourage all bloggers to do this. But this obviously isn't an option for live-tweeting a talk, so I don't see a problem with presenters who wish to encourage live-tweeting advertising that encouragement on their title slide. Why do you?
I remember commenting a year ago on another blog that I thought large meetings should open their doors to journalists and let them ask permission to cover individual presenters' work as they gained permission. I think this is a very reasonable policy for journalists and bloggers.
CSHL already had this policy for journalists, and has now formally extended it to bloggers. I'm hopeful that other meetings will adopt more open policies, but we'll see.
If I put an icon on my poster, and then talk to a colleague who I don't know is going to tweet my shit, do I have to worry that everything I say is tweetable?
No, of course not. A presentation icon would cover everything presented; a poster icon would cover everything on the poster. The icons wouldn't extend to conversations outside those defined areas unless permission was explicitly granted. This is common sense to most of us, but it should also be incorporated into a set of guidelines for conference bloggers associated with the icon.
If something is going to be blog safe, then it should be media safe. If the print media have to disclose their presence, then so should bloggers. They're both reporting stuff to the public.
I have no problem with conference registration including a question on whether you intend to blog/tweet the conference, with a section to include the URLs of your blog and/or your Twitter ID. Then conference organisers can monitor these URLs for breaches of conference policy and attendee name-tags could potentially include a small icon indicating blogger status.
Posted by: Daniel MacArthur | June 18, 2009 6:25 PM
PhysioProf,
I was under the impression that Daniel is an actual genome scientists, and registered for the CSHL meeting as such, not as a journalist/blogger/tweeter/whatthefuckever.
Your impression was accurate.
Posted by: Daniel MacArthur | June 18, 2009 6:34 PM
Ok, ok, ok. Now we are reaching some common ground. But, not blogger status. Media status. There has to be some way to know that something I say could end up in the common domain. Otherwise, I could very easily forsee the follwing scenario...
If I am presenting a poster with a sample size of 3 or 4 and I want my stuff blogged, I would word it very conservatively. If someone I identify as a colleague comes up and asks me about it, I might speculate about the importance of my data because they might help me plan the next steps to generate the data that tests my speculative hypothesis. If I knew that person was asking me these questions because he was going to tweet my answers to the public, my answers would be very different.
I don't like the idea of the icon because it requires no interaction between scientist and blogger and the scientist still has no idea who they are talking to. I appreciate your appeal to common sense, but you also say this:
You can't say this and then ask me trust in people's common sense. All I am asking is that if people are going to disclose my unpublished data that they identify themself, ask my permission, and allow themselves to be identified as someone who is passing info to the public.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | June 18, 2009 6:51 PM
I understand the various sides of the argument, and have a suggestion that I know is wishful thinking, but as no one reads these blogs (or my comments) anyway, this comment will have no effect on my standing as a scientist.
That is the real problem; that one’s standing as a scientist, One’s reputation, one’s funding, one’s scientific priority, one’s ability to get a position, one’s ability to get tenure, one’s ability to get published can be adversely affected by a blog or tweet taken out of context.
When the social structure that scientists have created for themselves to work in is so “brittle” that a tweet can break it; that is the problem. Tweets and blogs at meetings are simply symptoms of larger systemic problems. Problems that difficult funding times are making worse.
It really is a lack of trust. A lack of trust in the rest of the scientific community to be nice and not take Isis’ data out of context and/or see the obvious implications, crank out fresh data and scoop her priority. A lack of trust that Isis can’t talk about hypotheses that are have maybe a 90% probability, or even 50% without being labeled as non-rigorous and a wack-a-loon. A lack of trust that Isis can’t talk about what is near and dear to her without bullies trashing it, not because they gain anything but because they can, just for the lulz.
Posted by: daedalus2u | June 18, 2009 10:03 PM
Thanks, Isis, for speaking up on this issue. I've been following the discourse on this topic for the last couple of weeks, and I completely share your view point. Bloggers are media (whether paid or not), should identify themselves as media at the conference they plan to report from, and should follow the same rules as those dictated for conventional media. One would think that this was obvious.
"Question: how, exactly, would one go about asking permission to blog about someone's research and maintain pseudonymity, particularly when we're talking about professional colleagues?" Simple answer: you don't be pseudonymous when speaking about a specific person or their work. Consider this "accountability," one of those ethical tenets bloggers/tweeters seem to regularly miss (and alluded to by daedalus2u above).
Posted by: Carl | June 19, 2009 1:16 AM
Isis,
But, not blogger status. Media status. There has to be some way to know that something I say could end up in the common domain.
I think simply giving bloggers full media status is a terrible idea for several reasons, and I suspect real science reporters would feel the same way. But I have no problem with scientist bloggers having a noticeably different name badge to non-blogging attendees.
If someone I identify as a colleague comes up and asks me about it, I might speculate about the importance of my data because they might help me plan the next steps to generate the data that tests my speculative hypothesis. If I knew that person was asking me these questions because he was going to tweet my answers to the public, my answers would be very different.
As I said above, anything outside the poster or presentation should be considered "off the record" unless you state otherwise. I agree that common sense is not a sufficient enforcer here; this could be stated in a code of conduct that potential bloggers sign off on when they register for the conference.
I don't like the idea of the icon because it requires no interaction between scientist and blogger and the scientist still has no idea who they are talking to.
As I said above, no-one's forced to use the (still hypothetical) icon. If you want people to have to come and speak to you before they blog about your N=3 studies, just don't put the icon on your presentation; easy. The icon is only for presenters who feel comfortable having their work freely discussed online.
All I am asking is that if people are going to disclose my unpublished data that they identify themself, ask my permission, and allow themselves to be identified as someone who is passing info to the public.
If conference organisers go with this as the default option in their formal policy I will not oppose it, and I generally intend to follow this approach (where possible) for my own conference blogging.
But I still don't see why you'd be opposed to some presenters having the option of flagging their willingness to be freely blogged on their own slides, if they wished to do so.
Posted by: Daniel MacArthur | June 19, 2009 9:23 AM
Carl, I think the issue of pseudonymity is between the blogger and the presenter. If the blogger asks permission to blog pseudonymously and the presenter says it is ok, then there is no problem. Of course the blogger is then not pseudonymous to the presenter.
There is the presumption that if for some reason the presenter “needed” the blogger to break his/her pseudonymity (i.e. for a priority dispute related to the blogged material), that the blogger would be willing to do so. If a blogger is unwilling to break pseudonymity under reasonable circumstances then the blogger should not blog privately communicated material (which is what unpublished work is) pseudonymously.
I think it is the same for pseudonymous comments on blogs. The presumption is that the blogger will break the confidentiality if the commenter commits certain types of breaches, i.e. threatens criminal action against someone.
Posted by: daedalus2u | June 19, 2009 9:30 AM
If I could just turn the attention back to the ethics for a second after reading CPP, DM and PalMD's comments on the issue I brought up about pseudonymity.
You make excellent points about the ethical dilemma in the circumstance we are addressing on this particular thread. I'll be honest, in my inexperience and immaturity in terms of academic professional life, I did not frame it as deception in my mind at all. So thank you for pointing that out.
So if I'm understanding correctly, the only ethical thing to be done as a pseudonymous blogger is to either wait until the information is published (actually printed) or to ask the scientist for permission to blog about it? If, say, I e-mail this person using my pseudonym to ask for permission, is that still ethical? Or would you say that I was being deceptive in reverse - posing as a layperson when in fact I am a professional colleague?
The scenario I have in my head is as follows (leaving the conference thing aside for the moment): I want to blog about a research article that is currently "in press" or "under review" but that I have somehow gained access to. Is it ethical for me to send an email to that person as "JLK" in order to get permission to blog about it? Let's just assume for the sake of argument that they say "Sure, knock yourself out, just send me the link."
Posted by: JLK | June 19, 2009 12:02 PM
If I could just turn the attention back to the ethics for a second after reading CPP, DM and PalMD's comments on the issue I brought up about pseudonymity.
You make excellent points about the ethical dilemma in the circumstance we are addressing on this particular thread. I'll be honest, in my inexperience and immaturity in terms of academic professional life, I did not frame it as deception in my mind at all. So thank you for pointing that out.
So if I'm understanding correctly, the only ethical thing to be done as a pseudonymous blogger is to either wait until the information is published (actually printed) or to ask the scientist for permission to blog about it? If, say, I e-mail this person using my pseudonym to ask for permission, is that still ethical? Or would you say that I was being deceptive in reverse - posing as a layperson when in fact I am a professional colleague?
The scenario I have in my head is as follows (leaving the conference thing aside for the moment): I want to blog about a research article that is currently "in press" or "under review" but that I have somehow gained access to. Is it ethical for me to send an email to that person as "JLK" in order to get permission to blog about it? Let's just assume for the sake of argument that they say "Sure, knock yourself out, just send me the link."
Posted by: JLK | June 19, 2009 12:02 PM
Uh, if you want something to be kept a secret, then don't tell anybody. If you tell a group of people, and they tell a group of people, and they tell a group of people, then eventually, everybody knows what was told.
If it's tweeted, then -- simply -- more people just find out faster, and we are only arguing about the velocity of the telling. Sounds silly to complain about how fast their not-secret but secret travel.
Posted by: RDD | September 4, 2009 12:36 PM
But, seriously, doesn't it do a great job of establishing priority? Just saying.
HJ
Posted by: Bing | September 4, 2009 2:07 PM