Scientific Researchers and Web 2.0: Social Not Working? forum: topic
This is a public forum
Scientists interacting at the Guardian website
Maxine Clarke
Tuesday, 03 March 2009 13:00 UTC
From The Guardian yesterday:
The portrayal of science and scientists in the media often leaves something to be desired. Most stories cover studies published in dry, academic journals. Usually, they are important, occasionally they are entertaining, and every so often, they are truly awe-inspiring. But overwhelmingly, the science stories that make the headlines tell us little about how science works and how those involved see the world around them.
The paper has therefore asked four scientists to write monthly for its website (i.e. one column a week), about anything they like with a scientific theme. We are promised a wide range of topics, including biology, physics, psychology, ethics and new media. The columnists are Simon Singh (particle physicicst and popular science book author), Chris French (psychologist), Andy Miah (ethicist and “emerging technologist”) and “the leading American evolutionary biologist” [sic] P. Z. Myers. The articles are open for comments from readers. The first column is by Simon Singh, and can be seen here. He reveals that two members of Spurs football team have symmetry groups named after them.
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
NI bloggers? I mean NN bloggers.
-
Process-oriented – yep, that’s me, too. The same interest as in touring the beekeeper’s hives or the printing press or the Airbus factory (or following Bob Langer around for a day – great piece!). So if the Guardian was targeting people like Kristi or me with its series, it’s a little off.
[That is also what we have open houses in the laboratory for (during Science week, or some such local equivalent in many places). Harder to accomplish on a working research ship off the coast of Antarctica, but blogs can be more helpful there. Although a newspaper could easily set up a partnership with the bloggers and give a play-by-play summary for its print readers. I’d enjoy seeing that.]
I think the Guardian’s goal is slightly different – necessarily self-serving, of course – and William got it right on the mark. They need the writing to have a hook for its readership, which although intelligent is perhaps less focussed than the regular readership for Nature or equivalent journals. Now that I think of it, though, the Boston Globe when I read it years ago, used to have an excellent and well-followed Science (now Health/Science ) section.
(And as a developmental biologist, much as I respect PZ for certain things, the moniker did make me wince.)
Results
-
