Well, well, well. After spending the day dismantling and rebuilding my lab (which, to my slight surprise, was actually super fun), I return to some good news (relative to the bad news that's been flying around here over the last couple days).
1. The Pepsi blog has been shuttered. Here's the official notice from SEED/SB founder and CEO, Adam Bly. Note that he asks for comments and seems to be reading them. Head on over and participate in the conversation.
3. Aforementioned founder and CEO Adam Bly has started his own blog, right here at SB, called Science is Culture. Right now he's got a welcome post up, but he tells us he'll begin blogging in earnest this weekend. Does that make him a scibling? A sciparent? Not exactly sure. But I think this is another positive step, and should be some good reading.
4. For those who have been unclear as to the difference between a corporate sponsored paid for blog (as Pepsi was to be) as the new institutional blogs, Brookhaven Bits and Bytes chimes in with some clarification as to their relationship with Scienceblogs. I think I've made it clear in my prior posts on this debacle, but I think industry scientists should be part of the conversation here at Scienceblogs. It just has to be done the right way, and "Food Frontiers" was clearly the wrong way.
In case it hasn't been made clear by many others, those who left did not necessarily do so just because of the Pepsi blog fiasco, but because they felt it was the last straw in a series of events public and private. I haven't been around here long enough to have a sense of fed-up-ness, but from my 3 short months here, that sense of fed-up-ness appears to me to be warranted. My scibling Mike Dunford has a thoughtful post-pepsipolcalypse post up right now, so please check it out. In a very real way, Scienceblogs should be considered a living laboratory, or if you'd like a different analogy, we're pioneers of social media. We have to figure out the rules as we go, in some ways.
I like being part of a blogging network. I think the mission of SEED and Scienceblogs (you can read about it on Adam Bly's welcome post) is a good one, and I would like to be a part of it. Every institution, for-profit or non-profit, needs to periodically revisit its mission statement and re-articulate its vision. This is the healthy way to do things, and it reminds us why we're here and what we're trying to accomplish. I hope that in the coming days and weeks, SEED and Scienceblogs will do just that, and I hope that the bloggers are to be included in the conversation. Given the above changes, I am cautiously optimistic. We will see what the coming days and weeks bring.
Look forward to Monday Pets, as usual, on Monday. And tomorrow starts a tasty new weekly series that I've been planning.
Oh, and as long as we're being all full disclosure: I get paid a tiny amount to blog at Scienceblogs. At present, my research is not funded by any foundation, corporation, or governmental agency. I have previously participated in research funded by the National Institutes of Health - specifically, the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. I am currently participating in research that is funded by internal research funds made available by my university.
Maybe we can celebrate what appears to be somewhat of a victory for science blogging by getting scienceblogs.com back to actual science blogging?!
I just found out about the pay for premium services deal that SB was polling on, so I'm starting to imagine all the other "straws" that were piling up for you and your sciblings. I hope that SB can handle these types of experiments better in the future. And I'm glad you're still here, at least for now...re-working my blogroll this past week has become a real mess!
Can I just mention the I want the terms "Pre-Pepsipocalyptic" and "Post-Pepsipocalyptic" introduced to the general lexicon?
A fatal flaw was that they failed to have any representative posts ready to go up when the blog went live.
Had they done so, and had the content been surprisingly acceptable, the reception might have been better.
Instead we get this "Hi! Welcome to ShillBlog!" (crickets) and everyone, quite reasonably, expects the worst.
"..full disclosure: I get paid a tiny amount to blog at Scienceblogs"
That isn't exactly 'full' disclosure. Would full results in a science journal say 'the drug had a tiny effect' ?
What about numbers? What might be a 'tiny' amount to you might be a huge amount to me.
Sure - don't if you don't want to. But you can't pretend that saying "I won't disclose the actual amount I get paid" is really 'full' disclosure !