Alex Palazzo is a postdoctoral fellow working in the Department of Cell Biology at Harvard Medical School.
So I've been bumping into this idea on several blogs (idea? or is it a cult? ... I refuse to call it a meme, sorry Richard). I have some trouble understanding what it all means. Is it hard, as in hard core?
To help us understand the meaning of all this rhetoric, they (a bunch of hard core German Science bloggers) even have a manifesto:
I am a hard bloggin' scientist.This means in particular:
1. I believe that science is about freedom of speech.
2. I can identify myself with the science I do.
3. I am able to communicate my thoughts and ideas to the public.
4. I use a blog as a research tool. That means in particular, that I
- express my thoughts,
- get in contact with others,
- have a sketch of my process online,
- get feedback and new ideas from others.
5. I trust myself.
6. I surf a lot and I read a lot.
7. I blog once in a day/week/month.
8. I give comments once in a day/week/month on other blogs.
9. I am self-aware and critical.
10. I refer to the people who done the work first.
11. I give love and respect to the people.
Does this mean that peer reviewed journals have a new competitor ... data blogs? Also the love, "I trust myself" and "I am self-aware" sound sort-of Stuart Smalley.
They even have a logo(s):
So my only question is ... What is a soft core bloggin' scientist?
But seriously now, I do believe that blogs are a great way to share the latest ideas floating around the science world (well at least the part of the science world that blogs). But truthfully there is a lot of crap in our "science blogs". And other "science blogs" are nothing but crap. And I agree with Notes from the Biomass - too many "science blogs" listed on places like technorati are just fluff. So in this way I do appreciate that there are those out there who want to separate the wheat from the chaff. But could they provide a list of these hard core science bloggers?
Comments
Dunno about posting my unpublished research on my blog, or even sexy ideas that I may want to turn into research. I'd rather discuss other people's science, or occasionally tout my own stuff that has been published already. I don't have the guts to be the first one to put my ongoing research or future projects online yet.
As for good and bad science blogs out there - yes, there is a veriety. As in political blogs, there are different styles. Some blog a million times a day, others just occasionally. Some focus 100% on science, or even one narrow subdictipline, while others mix it with personal and political blogs, memes, quizzes, linkfests etc. Some write about day-to-day experiences in the lab or field or job-searching. Some focus on science education. Some highlight only the most recent papers in big journals. Others dig through the lesser journals, older stuff and write mini-reviews of whole areas of research. Who's to say what is a "science blog"?
I have tried to highlight some of my favourites in a series of linkfests. This is the tenth in the series, with links to the previous nine. I've been bad lately and I need to add the eleventh and the twelwth soon.
Posted by: coturnix | March 26, 2006 7:22 PM
Yes I don't think that I would ever post a hot discovery (although I have posted wierd data ... like exploding cells and strange dots in the nuclei ... but those don't count)
Posted by: apalazzo
| March 27, 2006 12:38 PM