Michael Lemonick hates science bloggers, or actually is maybe just a little jealous of how awesome we are. In the past, great popular science communicators like Stephen Jay Gould and Carl Sagan brought science to the public in an understandable (and perhaps more importantly, enjoyable) way, but with the growing popularity and profusion of blogs more and more scientists are taking on the mantle of "popularizer" and bringing science to whomever has an interest. Indeed, there is something of a vicious myth that scientists are inherently bad communicators, but the existence of so many growing science blogs is a testament to the fact that scientists can be just as witty, humorous, and insightful as any professionally trained journalist. Perhaps my move over to Sb has gone to my head a bit, but I'm proud to be part of a website where so many scientists (as well as people with expertise) are reaching out to a public that has been very responsive.
Not everyone is a fan of blogging, some have called it a "cult of the amateur" and I've heard worries that it's not regulated, peer-reviewed, or edited, but I think it really represents a positive shift in the way science is communicated. Just as some scientists aren't especially good at communicating their research to the public, some journalists are not very good writers and cannot do justice to the science they want to describe, science bloggers being somewhere on the middle ground. I'm especially thankful that if I news report comes out saying that a new fossil refutes the "theory of human evolution," for instance, there is a large number of scientists who will pick up the mistake and say something about it in the interests of accuracy and integrity.
Not everything gets covered by us science bloggers and sometimes mistakes are made, but in general I think it represents a powerful new form of media that can do a lot of good for science, and I find it difficult to understand some of the objections from those who say that science should only be communicated by professional journalists or by the scientists themselves through books and articles in print. I don't think science blogging should replace those more traditional forms of media, but it helps to bolster them and bring the science-savvy into contact with people who have questions and comments about all sorts of topics.
And you know, you could always go to the upcoming Science Blogging Conference and meet some of us in person, too.
- Log in to post comments
Um...he left you off the list. Not cool. :)
I'd be proud if I were you...you do a great job of conveying accurate information in an understandable language. Plus, you're always willing to admit when you're wrong. That kind of humility is hard to find and makes your blog an excellent source of fair information. Yay for you!
Oh...and J and I will be at the AMNH on Saturday the 22nd. We can go at 10am or around 2:30pm...does one of those work out better for you? We just need to get to MOMA that day as well...
I take pride in my science blogging. I abhore the Associated Press, with their eyes on keywords and controversy instead of actual science. I don't think I'll ever forgive them for turning the H. habilus in territory story into "questioning Darwinian evolution." It is irresponsible and a lie, built with the hope of selling papers and getting web hits.
(I could go on about that, but honestly, it would just be variations on that story, and I think you'd get the gist pretty quickly)
I strive to be accurate in my postings, at every opportunity going to the primary source for my information. I don't know how people could NOT like science bloggers, at least those who take blogging seriously. In a way, we ARE peer reviewed, through the comments section. I've been chided before (by Paul Sereno, of all people!) and I try to add constructive criticism when necessary. And besides, we're speaking to the masses--in a way that the Associated Press is unable (or unwilling) to do.
No sooner does a paper appear in a major (or even a minor journal) than they jump in with knowledgeable reaction.
It's a bit specious to claim that this is the case for all of the ScienceBlogs. Cognitive Daily fits the description, with frequent posts on peer-reviewed research articles, and a "just the research" option (do any of the other blogs have this feature?). Tetrapod Zoology is another heavy duty science blog, with the alternative approach of more review-type posts, each covering several journal articles. But I don't see a lot of "blogging on peer-reviewed research" in the group as a whole; there are a lot of important papers in major journals, which are never discussed or even mentioned.
Don't get me wrong...I enjoy reading a variety of post topics on all types of blogs. But most ScienceBlogs are more accurately "blogs by scientists"; just check the "Last 24 hours" function, and do a bit of honest post taxonomy.
Barn Owl; Thanks for your comment. I don't read every blog on here, but many of the ones I do read keep up with Science and Nature at least, and many cite references. The "Peer-Reviewed Research" icon has helped flag such posts as well, but that's something you won't see if you're just looking at the 24-hours feed. Take some of my posts based on peer-reviewed studies; I usually start out by setting the scene rather than jumping into the new study from line one, so it might appear that I'm not blogging about journal papers if people are just looking at the feed.
Some people use papers and references more than others, though, and there's also the factor of keeping up with what's in a journal (i.e. having time to read it, getting access, writing something up). Take my recent post on Carcharodontosaurus and the recently announced new species; I really wanted to post something about it right away but I didn't have access to the paper, so I had to wait until someone sent it to me. That puts a little lag on things.
Still, the great thing about Sb is that each writer has the freedom to write about whatever they want, although because of this some things just aren't going to get covered. It's not the aim of Sb to cover every single new paper that comes out, but I think a lot of peer-reviewed science gets covered here (and in better detail). Indeed, just looking at a feed is probably not going to give you a representative sample as references or peer-review icons might not show up, so you'd have to open up everything in addition to looking at the title and first few lines.
Still, many blogs (mine included) have meaty posts surrounded by ones that are not as formalized or about a specific scientific paper, but that doesn't mean that peer-reviewed research isn't being addressed.
I enjoy a lot of the science-blogs, and it's not only for the hard-science posts. My problem with them, and with blogs in general, is the ego factor. The more a blogger uses the first-person pronoun, the less I want to read them.