Tim Lambert notes that Science advocates blogging (and since they mention RC and scienceblogs, who can disagree?). They also mention James A; he raises the interesting point about blogs being tolerated rather than encouraged. Certainly I get no work-credit at all for this (not that I was expecting any) but its a fun thing to talk about at conference dinners. James points out Bryan Lawrences blog (which I had on my mustelid blogroll and have just added here) and how nice it is to see someone senior (albeit a bit techy :-) blogging.
Another example of someone senior “blogging” is Scientist on ice – Howard Dalton’s blog from the Antarctic but… its not really a blog, just a trip report, and is at the “This was my chance to hear some fascinating biology from some of the world’s experts in this field of “cryobiology”…” and “Most of all it has been Prof. Chris Rapley who’s made it all possible and who been an excellent host.Thanks so much!” end of things. Perhaps its a bit much to expect to read his secret thoughts. And he has no blogroll.
Anyway, my contribution to this little debate was to ponder what would happen if lots more people did start blogging. I’m at about saturation now (even using PF for aggregation). With 10x the number of bloggers, where would the time come from? Of course if people are actually blogging their papers (as RC does; as James does) then I can take the time from paper-reading time, and that would be ideal (not that I get that much time to read papers nowadays …:-()