Sessions/talks wanted
Corie Lok
Wednesday, 14 May 2008 19:16 UTC
Based on feedback we’ve gotten from you and others, we’ve decided that the conference format will be a hybrid one. Most of the session topics, speakers and schedule will be established by July. But we will reserve a few of the rooms and time slots for sessions that will be self-organized the morning of August 30. We’ll make sure there’s time on the 30th to do that.
So let’s begin with a call for session topics. Post ideas here for sessions (talks, panel discussions, workshops, etc) that you want to attend (not to speak at). If you can, please give suggestions for speakers and specify what sort of format you’re looking for: for example, a one-person talk, a panel, a hands-on workshop, something else?
In particular, we are looking for- 1 or 2 keynote speakers
- one panel discussion to wrap up the day
- concurrent sessions/talks (preset)
If you are proposing a session that you want to speak at, post those ideas on the Sessions/talks Offered topic.
Deadline: please post your ideas here by Friday June 6. Depending on how many ideas we get, we may do an informal poll online after June 6 to see which ideas are most popular. Based on that, we’ll invite the speakers and set the programme by July.
You can also email us at network@nature.com with session ideas.
Updated 14 May 2008 19:22 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Well obviously there is the Gee/Grant prize fight, inevitably going to a high stakes game of Mornington Crescent as a tie-breaker.
But a little more seriously there’s definitely a need for something on the Future of Scientific Publishing and the Role of Blogging in it. Something along the lines of ‘What’s a Science Blog For Anyway?’
-
I like that idea Cameron. Sounds like something for a good keynote speaker?
I wouldn’t mind seeing a session about how science blogging can be used to educate the public, whether it’s science students or members of the lay public. I’m not talking about blogs used to debunk junk science or to ‘straighten the record’ on hot topics like climate change. (I call that ‘defensive education.’) I’m talking about more proactive, day-to-day education about basic scientific concepts. What are some good examples and best practices of more educational blogs? More fundamentally, are blogs a good method/medium for reaching and teaching the masses about science? Is this something that we should strive for?
-
Cameron, I was thinking along similar lines (not the Gee/Grant part). I would like to have a session called How do we conduct and report science in 2013?. This of course covers a lot of ground, from open access publishing to Web 2.0 applications for scientists (my favorite topic).
I would like to use this session to define where we want to go. We could have several short talks by different people (maybe even the 5 min format) and with a little imagination this should be a lot of fun. I could do something like How do I write a paper in 2013?.
-
I don’t know about a keynote – too many different people with different views but maybe a panel discussion with several 5-10 minute talks to be introduced? I’d be interested in hearing from e.g (not a comprehensive list!)Maxine C, Jenny R, Richard G, Jean-Claude B who all do very different things with blogs.
I think the interesting bit is the different perspectives. If you pick a keynote then you get one perspective (which is not to say I’m against an entertaining keynote on the subject – just that I think the discussion would be the most interesting).
I also like Martin’s titles. Separates out the two issues of recording and reporting which might be useful.
-
I agree with Martin and Cameron about web 2.0 and science. For a conference with this title, do we limit discussion of “web 2.0” to “blogs”, though? From Martin’s post: “We need more discussions between scientists and software developers on what is needed and what can be done” (about making web 2.0 relevant for biologists). Neil Saunders in the comments: “My personal view is that we need less social, “Facebook for scientists” ideas and more apps aimed at data: aggregation, interoperability, transfer, search, online analysis.” (Also see David Crotty’s comments, and his article on web 2.0 failing biology at CSH blog, linked in Martin’s post, that kicked this off.)
Timo Hannay, NPG director of web publishing, wrote on Martin’s forum: Though it’s become synonymous with user-generated content and network effects, Web 2.0 is really about making the most of the web in all sorts of different ways. To believe that these kinds of experiments are worthwhile in principle, you really only need to believe that we’re not yet making the most of the web in scientific communication. I’ve yet to hear anyone disagree with that view. And I don’t think the argument that goes, “I’m already busy and don’t have time for anything new” holds up at all. If that’s true, where did we all find so much time to do email? By spending less time doing other things that were less efficient for achieving our goals. Providing tools that make research more efficient (and, I hope, more fun) is our goal and our challenge. No one ever said it would be easy, but neither is it beyond us. And whatever pessimists may think, we are making progress.So, a discussion of how web 2.0 (blogs) enchances and may enchance science research, progress and communication, or fails to do so, seems like a good idea to me, given these stimulating views being expressed.
-
Another topic is that of peer review.
See here, here and here for a set of posts at Peer to Peer blog. One statement is “to many, blogs are the face of science”.
Suggested discussion topic: Blogs are not peer-reviewed yet more people get information and news about science from them compared with the peer-reviewed literature. Some blog posts carry a stamp because they discuss peer-reviewed research. But the post itself is not peer-reviewed. Many people, including scientists, writing blogs have agendas and their posts are not objective and/or informed, including when they discuss research that is itself peer-reviwed. Against this background, how can blogs help (or hinder) the general communication of scientific research to the public? -
I agree with Cameron – a panel is the way to go.
Maxine, Science2.0 or Web2.0 Science has evolved to so much more than blogging – I think we need to include all those new technologies. In fact for the things we are doing wikis are at least as important for communicating science.
Based on the discussion here I think there is a lot of overlap with the topics we covered recently at the Scholar2Scholar conference
On that wiki there links to the notes taken at the various roundtable discussions after the panel. There might be some ideas there about focus points.
-
Correction to my web 2.0 suggestion, Timo’s comment was made on “From the Blogosphere” blog, not directly to Martin’s blog/forum discussion, sorry—though Martin’s posts provided the content for “From the Blogosphere”.
Thanks for the link, Jean-Claude. Of course I agree with your point about the various “social” technologies: but what of the limited time in a one-day meeting, and is the intention to keep the general focus of the day to “blogging”? We could certainly spend all day having a fascinating panel discussion on “science 2013” but blogging would necessarily only be a small part of that.
-
Maxine,
If you want to limit it to the communication of primary scientific data using Web2.0 technologies that would cover the concerns you raised, including the peer-review issue.That would not cover discussion of Intelligent Design, global warming or politics, which are frequent topics of “science blogs”.
-
Perhaps one talk on ‘Science beyond the blog’? And otherwise keep the focus on blogs? I mean I can happily talk about this stuff for weeks on end, so getting 100 peoples views into one day will be a challenge.
Results
-