I know some of the others (among them Jason) have talked about this, but I thought I would mention it. The May 4th issue of Cell has an article by Laura Bonetta about scientific blogging. Money quote:

The concept of scientists reaching out to a lay audience is not new. "Scientists are an opinionated bunch and they have given their thoughts on discoveries or events by speaking with journalists, writing letters to journals, authoring commentaries," says Matthew C. Nisbet, a professor in the School of Communication at American University in Washington DC. "Blogs provide a lot more of that commentary, but delivered almost instantaneously." According to Nisbet, blogs written by scientists provide an authoritative opinion on a topic, often within a richer context than, for example, a news article. "Science blogs are important because they continue to engage the attentive public in scientific topics," he says.

Nisbet -- whose blog Framing Science (http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science) focuses on the intersections between science, media, and politics--believes blogs are an important communication tool for the scientific community. "In the digital age, information is found based on availability rather than accuracy. If different interest groups start blogs that attack peer-reviewed science, and the scientific community does not engage in similar communication mode, they will miss an important opportunity to educate the public," he says.

In a recent article (Science 316, 56, 2007), Nisbet and colleague Chris Mooney, a correspondent for the popular science magazine Seed, wrote that "Without misrepresenting scientific information on highly contested issues, scientists must learn to actively 'frame' information to make it relevant to different audiences." In other words, instead of focusing on explaining the technical details of scientific issues, scientists should define arguments in a way that resonates with the public's "core values and assumptions." Scientist bloggers are debating the implications of this approach. Myers wrote in his blog that if he took Nisbet and Mooney's advice "I'd end up giving fluff talks that play up economic advantages and how evolution contributes to medicine...and I'd never talk about mechanisms and evidence again. That sounds like a formula for disaster to me."

As the debate about the Nisbet-Mooney article exemplifies, blogs allow discussions of scientific issues that do not typically take place in the scientific literature. "A scientific journal is not the right vehicle for debate and discussion," says Larry Moran, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Toronto and author of the popular biochemistry textbook Principles of Biochemistry...

But how significant are these discussions if only a minority of scientists read blogs, or write them? "Blogs are important sources for opinion leaders, activists, and journalists. They help create a lot of the discourse out in the world," explains Nisbet. Indeed, many discussions that grab the attention of bloggers have ended up in the pages of The New York Times or in the news sections of science journals. "Blogs are having an impact because newsmakers read them," says Moran. "To some extent we are writing for science journalists. We are saying 'Here is something getting the wrong kind of coverage' or 'Here is something you should be paying attention to.'" (Emphasis mine.)

I post this in part because I think it is a good article, but also because I was struck that it was in Cell. Cell is a pretty serious journal. (Jason actually argues that it is a better journal than Science or Nature, and on that ground I am inclined to agree.)

Perhaps I am being premature, but I think articles like this suggest that even in the scientific establishment there is an emerging consensus that blogging contributes to intellectual discussion. This is novel because I think up until recently -- and possibly still now -- there was a stigma attached to internet discussions as inherently unacademic in nature. Maybe this indicates that people are changing their minds.

Also, I am happy to read articles like this because a better recognition of the uses of blogging by scientific journal staff might help us avoid any more unfortunate misunderstandings about copyright, such as the time recently when Shelley was threatened with legal action. We'll see whether that happens too, but -- like I said -- Cell is a big journal and it looks like their editorial staff has at least heard of blogs and are considering their benefits.