Thoughts on the 2nd Annual Science Blogging Conference

It's amazing how quickly three days can pass by; on Thursday I made a mad dash to make sure everything was in order for my trip to North Carolina and by 10:30 Friday morning I was sitting in an NC hotel room, not sure if I was awake or asleep. I didn't have much time to sort myself out, though, as I soon had to head out again to the Duke University Lemur Center. There I met up with Reed, Josh, Euan, and others for a tour of the facility. It was a fascinating place (even if a little pungent), and although I did happen across a television celebrity the highlight of the day was a face-to-face meeting with two Daubentonia without any barriers separating me from them. Although it was too dark to take any pictures, the pair were just as curious about me as I was about them, and it was definitely an experience that I won't soon forget.

i-cd297785ce24eb512373ce494399d7d0-blueeyeblackduke.jpeg


A female blue-eyed black lemur (Eulemur macaco flavifrons) at the Duke Lemur Center. This species is sexually dichromic, males being black and females being a caramel-brown color. This particular female was not too happy with the visitors to her cage; she grunted, swung her tail, and scent-marked to make sure we knew that we weren't welcome.


The staff at the DLC were very helpful and sent all of us home with some materials to look over, so I'm sure I'll be blogging about what they do there in more detail soon. By the time the tour of the lemur center finished and I returned to the hotel (I got a little bit lost along the way), there was just enough time to get ready for dinner, and I was fortunate enough to ride with Shelley, Anne-Marie, and Gabrielle Lyon from Project Exploration on the way to the Town Hall Grill. We were a little late and it was so loud that I could barely hear my own voice, but it was absolutely fantastic to meet some other of my favorite bloggers like the inexhaustible Bora, Abel Pharmboy, and Ginny (as well as the blogger behind SECular Thoughts). Admittedly I was still a bit shy so I didn't get to talk to many of my fellow Sciblings who were also in attendance, but that would all change the next day.

As is tradition with any event where I have to wake up at a reasonable hour, my alarm went off, I glanced at my watch and saw that it was 7:20. In a morning haze I thought "Ok, so if the shuttle leaves at 7:50, that means I have, erm... 30 minutes, right? That's plenty of time." Thirty minutes later, still bleeding a little from the hatchet job I did shaving a few minutes prior, I hopped on the bus over the Sigma Xi for the conference. I was soon pressed into service handing out the immense swag bags, and that was actually a very good thing; I got to meet Janet, James, Tara, Ann Marie Cunningham of NPR's "Science Friday," and many others. After a considerable amount of time lugging the bags I began to wilt a little, though, so I am indebted to Martin for taking the reigns and suggesting that I get some breakfast. During this time I also ran into Kevin Z, who gave me a glowing review in a discussion with National Geographic representative Barbara Moffet. Such conversations were generally cut short, though, as it was soon time to get the conference rolling.

It was difficult making choices as to which sessions I should attend and which I would have to (regrettably) miss, but I definitely enjoyed the sessions that I was able to sit in on. The first session I picked was on ethics in science blogging led by Janet, the lively discussion that followed her presentation definitely leaving me with more questions than answers (but in a good way). Just about everything I hastily scribbled on the post-its from my swag bag has a question mark after it, but it was definitely a stimulating and rewarding session. Of particular interest, I think, was the question of whether science blogging still has a bit of (to borrow Janet's metaphor) a "Wild West" pattern of behavior or whether a system of ethics is emerging based upon the "policing" of other bloggers and readers. In fact, the session has led to the development of a science blogging ethics wiki, and I hope that it becomes an important and well-used resource.

For the second session I decided to stop in on Martin's discussion of the intersection of science blogging with the humanities, a relevant topic since a lot of what I write deals with the history of science and not just new research in and of itself. I disagreed with some of the assertions of some of the people at the session (i.e. the utility of Beliefnet.com to rigorous blogging about the humanities), but I liked that Martin had the internet up and ready to go to hop around the web at his leisure. Some dancing badgers even made an appearance during the course of the session.

After a break for lunch it came time to speak with Shelley, Anne-Marie, Sarah, and Anna, and while I would have liked to have seen a few more people in the audience it still was a wonderful experience. Like many of the other sessions, there was a real give-and-take between the panelists and the audience, and I was glad to see so many friends providing advice and encouragement to us student bloggers. The most vigorous debate of the day was yet to come, however.

After a few pictures and locopops, everyone came together in the main room of Sigma Xi to view the triple-threat presentation of Chris, Sheril, and Jennifer about the infamous "f-word," and things certainly got a little heated. (In addition to a slew of links, be sure to check out this post over at A Blog Around the Clock which features video of the presentations.) There were some aspects of the presentation that I agreed with and others that I did not, but even when I find myself in disagreement I was glad to be listening to what my three fellow Sciblings had to say because it made me think about what we can be doing to improve science communication. Indeed, it struck me that Jennifer used the phrase "believe in evolution" in her presentation rather than "accept" or "understand" evolution. Such a phrase strike the primary issue I think many of us have with framing as currently presented, at least in that it seems focused on getting people to "believe" in evolution, anthropogenic climate change, etc. and not on getting them to understand such topics. I'm not suggesting that this is what the presenters meant during the discussion, but when I see surveys and statistics citing low levels of scientific understanding used to make the point that America is intellectually impoverished when it comes to science I have to ask myself "Are we trying to get more people to understand these issues and develop critical thinking, or are we just trying to get the percentages of people who 'believe in evolution' up?"

Being that framing was not explicitly laid out or discussed (something that I was actually hoping to hear), much of the commentary and criticism after the session focused on ScienceDebate 2008. Overall, the feeling seems to be that it might be too late to expect the debate to come off and there are a number of potential problems and unknowns, but I think it is at least important to try to get it off the ground (from what was said, it almost seems like the current project is trying to build momentum, the expectation being that at some point later control of the situation may be taken away from Chris, Sheril, and the other people behind the project). Even if the project never comes to be, science does seem to be of some greater importance than in previous years, questions about evolution and technologies to reduce automobile emissions being reported more widely than I can remember in the past. I think this shows that people are interested in science, or at least areas of science that are viewed as being personally important and relevant. People are certainly talking about scientific issues and developing their own opinions about them, but it seems that all-too-often they are not basing their stand on a subject on science but through "common sense," wishy-washy popular media reporting, or even Sunday-morning sermons. To say that the public isn't interested in science simply is not true; what we do with that interest and how we foster critical thinking appears to be the more important task at hand. As Rick has stated in the conclusion of a post about this same talk, I think the room was filled with writers who are concerned with just this very question. Indeed, I hope that the myth that the public just isn't interested in science and that scientists are inherently bad communicators wither so we can focus on some of the more important aspects of science communication/education.

(One further criticism before I move on; Randy Olson sent along a message to the conference via Jennifer suggesting that the next SBC be held on Second Life. I think that's an incredibly bad idea, at least as a replacement for an event where bloggers can come together and meet in person. If someone wants to organize a secondary online event, that's fine, but I would much rather drive 8 hours to meet up with some of my favorite bloggers rather than sitting at my computer, drinking Woodpecker Cider by myself.)

After the framing presentation came a general lecture about the growing importance of science blogging by Jennifer Ouellette. Throughout the conference there was a general theme of blogging vs. traditional media outlets, the perceived disparity between the two different groups of writers making it appear that they were a sort of non-overlapping magisteria. As Jennifer pointed out, though, there's plenty of communication and movement between blogging and print journalism, bloggers also being the writers of books and articles and journalists also starting up blogs. While bloggers rightly rip traditional reporters a new one when science is shoddily reported in the media, traditional media can benefit from the criticism and comments of bloggers, perhaps eventually causing an improvement in science reporting. Whether such improvements will ultimately occur in popular science reporting or not, I don't know, but even though there is conflict I think there is a good potential for collaboration as well.

As interesting as all the talks and presentations were, though, I was a bit glad to get back to the hotel to relax with some of the other bloggers present. I met Zuska, Dave, Peter, Karen, and a number of other writers I had already been introduced to, and the proximity of all these new friends definitely spurred some interesting conversation. From problems with right whale conservation to the bogus hypothesis of excess adipose tissue deposits in the ears of some people resulting in a loss of hearing, I don't think I've engaged in so much pleasant conversation in a long time. Soon it was time to go to sleep though, although I did get a chance to meet up with some people one more time before everyone had to go home. By Sunday morning everyone seemed like they had been run over, and although I wanted to visit the natural sciences museum I thought it better to start driving home early to get home at a reasonable hour.

All in all, I had an absolute blast and wished that I could have stayed just a bit longer. I'm already looking forward to the next meeting of so many bloggers, although I do wish I had introduced myself to a few more people whom I just didn't cross paths with. I am especially indebted to my fellow Sciblings, especially Bora, Shelley, Martin, Josh, Ginny, Janet, Zuska, Peter, and Abel Pharmboy; you all made me feel like a real part of the Sb family. I was definitely a little intimidated when I first got to the conference (believe it or not I'm actually a bit shy), so many people that I consider superior bloggers all being in the same place, but I really felt welcomed by everyone I had a chance to meet. I also received some rather unexpected and pleasant news from several people I happened to meet at the conference, but I'll have to keep such things under my hat for now (although I have some potentially big announcements for you all in the near future).

I don't really know how to do justice to such a wonderful weekend in this closing paragraph, so I suppose I'll just share an anecdote of how I was feeling when it was all over. Driving back north on I-85 through North Carolina, I was reflecting on the conference, a mix CD I had made specifically eventually playing a song I had forgotten that I put on. It was Oasis' "Don't Go Away." Sure, the lyrics don't exactly fit the situation, but it was close enough to make me wish I just had a few more hours to spare in NC. Oh well, I guess there's always next year...



[Post-Script: I'd love to keep in touch with those of you that I met this past weekend. If you've got facebook, you can find my profile here. Otherwise, e-mail works just fine, too (evogeek AT gmail DOT com).]

Update: I realize that I've probably forgotten a few people that I met during the conference. Among the people that I forgot the first time around was Jason of Cephalopodcast, and if I forgot to mention running into you please feel free to speak up in the comments.

More like this

Kids show?? I watched that show in high school-- Kratt Brothers are cute :P

Hey Brian! It was my great pleasure to meet and hang out with you at the conference. I agree with the first comment on Zoobomafoo. My 2 year old loves it and it exposes him (and me!) to a wide variety of animals. Go Kratts!

...to the bogus hypothesis of excess adipose tissue deposits in the ears of some people resulting in a loss of hearing...

I do not believe this hypothesis has been rigorously tested.

Hey, even making the footnotes of a Laelaps post is worth it. Nice to meet you and look forward to reading many more post here on one of my favorite blogs.

BTW, did you see this post? Dinosaurs on ice.

My husband went to North Carolina and all I got was a t-shirt with an aye-aye on it! Just kidding, I really love the shirt! I just never had the chance to say that before...hehe =)