There are times when I'm not entirely sure what to write. Like many other bloggers, I was certainly frustrated by Matt Nisbet's latest piece about who is allowed to "speak for science," but whatever useful discussion there might have been essentially was dead at the start. I wrote something up earlier today on how the present argument over framing has degenerated into name-calling and demands for apologies, but I ultimately decided to trash it; I didn't see it adding much, things being as they are.
Still, the arguments presently being aired did remind me of something Blake asked not too long ago, and a recent post from BrianR definitely helped to push me to ask myself what can science bloggers be doing better? Our medium is still a young one and the growing pains can be severe at times, and there's certainly room for improvement. What changes might be made will be contingent upon what you think science blogging is (or should be), but it seems to me that one of the most controversial issues in science blogging at the moment is the combination of the personal and professional. Blogs are personal spaces on the web, individual soap-boxes in the larger public square that is the internet, but science blogs have different expectations (even limitations) than just any personal space on the web. We're not all going to be button-downed academics (things would be pretty boring if that were true), but everyone seems to have their own methodology and idea of what appropriate in terms of how they write about science.
Open access and better transmission of papers among bloggers is also a fertile issue for discussion, but I'm more interested in what makes a "good" science blog (where can we really improve, and what issues are more a matter of expectation). Ultimately any changes will have to come out of the community and I don't expect to come up with an equivalent of the 95 theses here, but I am concerned when a number of bloggers that I respect express their frustration with the current state of things. If nothing else, we could at least generate some good debate while we're navel-gazing.
- Log in to post comments
I think you've managed a good mix on your blog. Right now you've got an interesting post on the Iguanodon in the Maidstone coat of arms, a post about a peer-reviewed research article, and a lovely animal photograph, for example. None of it is fluff, or too political, and most is biology-related in some way.
I have loads of excellent bird photos that a friend and colleague of mine took (and gave me permission to use), and I really should post them on my own blog more frequently. I've been looking for avian-related research articles, environmental news, and poems, so that I can match them with the bird photos.
My personal opinion would be to focus on three major areas.
The first is to continue to promote discoveries and discussions in science for the popular audience. Whether it's Mr. Wizard, Beakman's World or Bill Nye the Science Guy for children, or Cosmos, Nova, and the Nature of Things for adults, these innovations, weirdness and wonders that science show brings out the best impulses in people. Science has always been a source of wonder and fascination, and should be presented as such to people of all ages.
Second, I think exposing and discrediting anti-science charlatans should continue. I think the misinformation and propaganda perpetuated by those movements are bad for the political discourse if they go unanswered.
Finally, when it comes to the whole "Science/Religeon/Atheism" mess, I think it's vital to be pushing for secularism as a virtue. Secularism is about the only available common ground between atheists, agnostics and the religious, and indeed in a pluralistic society as our own, it is about the only way we can live together without oppression. That separation of church and state is one of the key tenants of American society, and has benefited all variations on Christianity from each other just as much as it has protected religious minorities and atheists. As long as "secular" remains a dirty word in America, science and government will always be seen as subordinate to religeon, rather than independant from it.
So, that's my take, for whatever it's worth.
Whoops, shoot. I was ranting on science communication in general, rather than this blog in particular.
Quite honestly, I think scienceblogs in general, and yours in particular, do very well in the mix of science and communication. I don't think it even SHOULD be a polished message arm for the scientific community. Bolgs have a certain level of vitality and human interest that are pretty unique, and certainly compelling, considering the number of readers.
I think the real efforts by groups like NAS and AAAS have to happen in the traditional media, rather than on the internet. The goal is to reach out to groups that might not otherwise seek out scienceblogs, and help penetrate the bubble that science opponents inhabit.
Also, secularism is about reality---something it shares with science.
Religion is about, well, something other than reality; in other words, it shares nothing with science.
I th ink open access articles would be a HUGE step in the right direction. Otherwise, Brian, I'm agreeing with everyone else--this blog is kind of the benchmark, and it's a benchmark I hope to one day reach!
I might as well say that I have a lengthy essay in the works called "What Science Blogs Can't Do". It's a difficult piece to finish, since I have to be both pessimistic enough to complain and energetic enough to write. So, I'm very interested in what people — bloggers, readers, professionals, amateurs, everybody — think is failing or should be improved.
Thanks for the comments, everyone. I appreciate the compliments on Laelaps, too, although I hope to continue to improve.
"I don't think it even SHOULD be a polished message arm for the scientific community. Blogs have a certain level of vitality and human interest that are pretty unique, and certainly compelling, considering the number of readers."
Agreed. This is why I mentioned the issue of balancing the personal and professional. If I were a professional writer, I probably couldn't (or wouldn't) write most of what I say here. I like to think that I use my freedom to my advantage, and I'm sure other bloggers would express similar sentiments. I don't think that blogs should be trying to become professional, "no-nonsense" places little different from the mass media, but at the same time this still leaves us in a bit of a "wild west" where we're still all working out how to do what it is we do.
As for the religion issue, I don't think bloggers should just sweep it under the rug and ignore it. I might disagree about how some bloggers go about things, but trying to cut out any discussion of religion would be foolish. I think there is a diversity of opinion here on Sb and over science blogs in general, and I think it's better to keep actively discussing conflict between science & religion than pretend it doesn't exist. Otherwise we'll end up being relativists and say "Well, whatever works for you."
Ultimately, it comes down to what you want to accomplish with your science blog. Is it for educating the public or having a dialogue with fellow scientists? Often, you find that it's next to impossible to manage both. There's always a tradeoff concerning the language that you need to use and how your posts are directed and even the nature of the commmunity that you are trying to build.
Even if I complain from time to time about the drama, the energy and passion evident in science blogs means it's a worthwhile medium.
Science blogs shouldn't be all the same, some are for other scientists, some are for the public, and so on. Which is why having a "one-stop shopping" for science blogs (Scienceblogs.com) doesn't quite work for me. Yeah, there are plenty of great, individual blogs...but, what do they have to do with each other? Are they meant not to have anything to do with each other? What's the linkage...that they have something to do with science, in some shape or form?
I fear that the larger sb.com gets, the more likely some of the negative aspects of a large "one-stop shopping" kind of place will be. Like, overall quality of the product will go down. It's not that individual blogs get worse, just diluted.
I don't know ... perhaps I'm being nit-picky ... I still visit sb.com and interact from time to time ... like now :)
Ultimately, it comes down to what you want to accomplish with your science blog. Is it for educating the public or having a dialogue with fellow scientists?
I think this is a good point, and it can be expanded to include the question of what your science career goals are, in part. Not that a blog determines a science career, of course, but it may reflect certain aspects of that career. If one of your goals is to do research, then publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and in books that arise from meetings or conferences, will be important. With an informal survey of ScienceBloggers whose publications I can readily check on PubMed or Google Scholar, Darren Naish stands out as productive in this arena...the others, not so much. I suspect it's no coincidence that his blog posts are substantial, well-written, and extensively researched, with multiple references.
They link all over the place! I often see posts that take off where someone else's post began. And bump into each other, too. If nothing else, ScienceBlogs is proof that the scientific community isn't one little closed society where everyone is in agreement on the next furtive step in the conspiracy. That is a good thing.
But scientifically-minded people and religious people do have something in common: the society we must share. So I have to second the idea that secularism is vitally important.
And while it is not a good idea to polish it like a magazine (if I wanted to read the New Yorker, I'd subscribe) it wouldn't hurt to raise it off the floor of the junior high school gymnasium in places. But questions of style are an individual discovery.
All that aside, I love ScienceBlogs. It is like a daily science magazine, which is my preferred reading anyway.
One of the really important overlooked aspects of science blogging is that is humanizes scientists. As a non-scientist, in my lifetime I've seen the public perception of scientists swing from ethereal beings of supernal wisdom to elitist know-it-alls out to destroy the moral fabric of society.
Most folks never have the opportunity to interact with working scientists on an interpersonal level. I'm lucky enough now to count some working scientists among my personal friends, but for most of my life scientists were nameless, faceless entities whose grave pronouncements were dutifully recorded by the press.
Personal posts on science blogs about pets, kids, spouses, politics, religion etc. are, for me at least, a very important part of the public outreach aspect of science blogging.
I think the emphasis on blogging on peer-reviewed research is somewhat misguided. I think that scientists who blog will naturally blog about the research they're reading, but the window into scientists-as-people that science blogs provide is where the real outreach occurs.
Forgive me for double-posting, but on reflection what I especially like about SB is that it is not a science magazine. It's better because it isn't journalism, it's scientists talking about stuff. The rough edges are a vital part of the story "journalists" often sanitize or oversimplify (perhaps through ignorance), unless it fits some agenda they have.
Whoops, HP posted while I was doing stuff, but yeah, exactly.
I think the emphasis on blogging on peer-reviewed research is somewhat misguided.
What emphasis? It's a choice that the individual ScienceBlogger makes, not an emphasis. Neither the most active nor the most e-mailed posts at ScienceBlogs represent peer-reviewed research. As I wrote earlier, I think a mix of post types is best; my preference as a reader is that they be predominantly science-related in some way, not necessarily that they cover peer-reviewed research.
Barn Owl, emphasis may have been a poor choice of wording on my part. It is, of course, always a choice by the individual blogger. Whether to blog at all is a choice. At the same time, you have on the one the Blogging on Peer Reviewed Research icon and aggregator, and on the other hand you have the trolls who show up in the comment threads every time a science blogger makes a personal post to bitch them out, saying things like, "I thought this was supposed to be a science blog!"
I was referring to these external pressures to blog more on peer-reviewed research, not any emphasis placed by the bloggers themselves.
I agree that science blogs are an excellent place to show the human side of scientists. They can serve to forge connections when people see what they have in common with each other. In the case of your blog, your post on cat rescue immediately established a common ground with me beyond science.
Blogs can also provoke introspection. Your post on the difference between learning and passively processing resonates with me from the other side of the podium. I want my students to actively learn and reading of your experiences can give me insight into the student's point of view. I have questions: did your professors do anything to try to encourage your learning? If so, why didn't it work? What would have worked to encourage you to actively learn the material?
Blogs can also serve to educate and inform others and create an interest and love of science in those whose curiosity is stimulated by someone's post to the point that they do further reading on a topic.
In regards to the recent furor about "Expelled", I also believe that the approach to stand firmly behind is separation of Church and State. That is a very clear goal that we can all support.
Additionally, I hope that most bloggers and those that comment on their blogs would avoid resorting to name-calling and flinging insults at those they don't agree with. That includes other scientists as well as non-scientists. I become uncomfortable when I see comments that show less maturity than my ninth grade son.
I'm glad to see this topic has been a fertile topic for discussion.
Dr. T; "did your professors do anything to try to encourage your learning? If so, why didn't it work? What would have worked to encourage you to actively learn the material?"
My experience has probably been unusual. Being at a large university, the basic 100-level courses have been terrible as students are basically lectured at for an hour and a half, the mentality seemingly being "You either get it or you don't, and if you don't, tough."
Other professors in smaller courses have been both better and worse. Some have actively discouraged me, telling me there's no future for my interests. A few, though, in paleo and anthropology have been very encouraging and worked hard to try and help me. Some of the best courses I've taken, in fact, have been seminars where I have to read a few papers each week and come up with a presentation about them, tying together the main points.
Still, the courses in which I didn't receive much benefit were large lecture courses that everyone just "has to" take no matter what, there being little interaction between the students and professor. Other people might not like it, but I've gotten more out of smaller classes in which I had to demonstrate my knowledge of something as the "expert," as I really can't explain something if I don't understand it. Otherwise, it often becomes a matter of just studying for the exams and usually forgetting what I was told afterwards.
Like I said, maybe I'm unusual, and I know I haven't always been a good student, but the large-university set up has not served me especially well.
Sorry, HP, I misunderstood your use of the word emphasis.
In a way, labeling the personal, non-science posts of science bloggers as representing their "human" side implies that rational, scientific endeavors are somehow not human, or less human. I don't happen to think that a blogger who writes mostly political posts, or who links lots of videos, cartoons, social commentary, etc. is necessarily a more personable, likeable, "human" individual, than a blogger who posts more science, natural history, and technical content. I consider myself to be a pretty empathetic and approachable human, but I spend a large portion of my daily communication talking about science, in the context of interacting with students or colleagues for hours at a time. There really isn't much room for non-science fluff and political analysis, in the course of a typical day.
When I do interact with people outside academia, they're often curious to know what a scientist does all day at work. They might very well have a bias that scientists "sit around and discuss abstract, impractical concepts with each other for hours". Another bias I've encountered is that "scientists fly off to meetings in nice places, where they sit around for hours discussing abstract, impractical concepts, while taking the occasional break to sip wine or eat an expensive meal or go skiing. Plus they get paid for talking". I can use my own typical day at work to disabuse them of these notions, but unfortunately I think that these biases may be reinforced by some of the posts and commentary on science blogs, which goes on in great verbosity for days and days, and accomplishes little or nothing of consequence. A horsetrainer friend of mine, when describing my job to others, will say that "she gives mice cancer"-which is true, even if he doesn't understand the scientific details of how I give mice cancer. I'd rather have that said of my career, than something like "she flies off to meetings, where she sits around and talks about abstract concepts".
I think it is difficult to say what makes a good science blog. Mostly, I come down on the side of of the people that say it depends on what your purpose is in writing the blog in the first place. I think people are overly concerned with the idea of what a science blog ought to be or what kind of blog deserves the name "science blog." It seems to me that a science blog is any blog that is related to science in subject matter and/or a blog about being a scientist. What makes it a good science blog is if the posts are thoughtful and well-written.