I did not have too much luck explaining what it is that I do at my new job in my last post. I think I will take a break from that uphill endeavor and return to an old stand-by: the rant. Here we go.
I get to go to quite a few conferences as part of my job. The conferences range from interesting talks on threat agents, to mind-erasing discussions on how to set standards for biological assays (I seriously contemplated harakiri by the second day). The attendees are invariably 80% men (of the Caucasian persuasion) in suits (the ill-fitting kind). The meeting I attended last week, however, was exceptionally interesting, with science almost edging out the government-speak.
I felt so terribly official with my nametag… and the suit I borrowed from my Mom, because I still don’t own one. Sad.
The meeting, held at the National Academy of Sciences Keck Center, focused on synthetic biology. It brought together rock star-level scientists (Drew Endy – Best. Speaker. Ever.), BioTech CEOs and CTOs, heads of major funding bodies, and attorneys to discuss the progress in synthetic biology, approaches to educating and keeping the public engaged on the topic of synthetic biology, and of course, how to regulate it to prevent misuse.
National Academy of Science Building in DC. One of the perks of living in the Nation’s capital is the proximity to the hearts of many influential organizations.
One of the biggest concerns surrounding synthetic biology is the potential for generating something more virulent, or entirely novel and pathogenic. The gene synthesis industry has been subjected to the most intense scrutiny, because of the potential for bad people to order the synthesis of bad agents. The public’s fear of synthetic biology and mistrust of scientists is natural, especially for a field with a name as ominous and vaguely threatening as “synthetic biology.” Skynet, anyone?
The speakers and participants in the conference all stayed mainly on track, save for the one ethicist in the crowd who expounded on his belief that there is no such thing as “the public” or “society” and we need to change our attitudes/language to something else, somehow, someday, I didn’t understand at all. One of the last speakers of the event, from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a public policy group, talked about the difficulty in disseminating valuable information about synthetic biology at a time when most major media outlets are cutting science sections and science reporters. He went on to say that all science reporting is slowly dying and that there remains no good way to get well-researched, accurate information out to the public. And I quote, “you can’t expect a blogger to do that, now can you!"
Can you tell where the rant is going to come in?
I swear to you, I gasped audibly. Gasped/peed pants, it’s all the same. I was absolutely livid. That single statement went against everything I believe in and worked toward while at NN and at home, blogging.
Luckily, there was a savior on that last panel of the meeting. He and I locked eyes after the offensive comment was made, in sympathy and commiseration. Or more like I stared at him in disbelief and he may have turned his head in my general direction, it’s all the same. That savior? Adam Bly, the founder and editor-in-chief of SEED Media, the publisher of SEED Magazine and backer of ScienceBlogs. He was there (the only one there) to represent the media’s perspective on educating the public about new scientific developments. He did not let me down.
Calmly and eloquently, he outlined for the apparently non-internet friendly audience the role social media could play in picking up the slack of traditional media outlets, all while tugging at his beautifully fitting suit. He respectfully but insistently disagreed with the previous speaker and described the basis and vast reach of ScienceBlogs in spreading and explaining scientific news in an approachable way. He then urged the attendees to “bypass the mainstream media and develop and use alternate tools to communicate with the public.” He preached to my personal choir that one should “look to new media, because you can.”
I was so grateful he was there to stand up for bloggers, and the internet, and the little guys (ok, me). However, I maybe wouldn’t have gone as far as he did in advocating a complete capitulation of efforts in trying to use traditional media for science communication. There are tons and tons of people in this country (and beyond) who have not entered blogs, or even the internet, into their daily routine. They deserve and need to know all the latest science as much as any geek with a broad-band connection.
So what did I learn this last conference?
- Adam Bly has nice suits.
- The people tasked with keeping their finger on public opinion of science do not see the enormous potential of blogs and social media. This is a problem.
- I have great self-control because I a) didn’t yell from my seat in defense of blogs, and b) did not throw anything heavy and pointy at the social scientist who told us there is no such thing as “the public.”
Long rant, over.
P.S. The audio of the conference is available here. For the anti-blogger remark that got me so huffy, and Adam Bly’s response, scroll to Session 7.
Good post, Anna, for all kinds of reasons.
On your point about quality of science blogs as a source of reliable information and news (esp compared with regular media). Of course there are some very good science blogs. But there are a heck of a lot that aren’t – scientists who blog are just like any other group of people who blog. Motivations differ wildly.
I do think that blogging and other social media are a powerful positive force. Also, they are a powerful negative force.
What is needed is some fine-tuning, so that anyone can find the good bits and keep away from the (self-indulgent, cranky, profane, incorrect, agenda-riddeen, trivial) other stuff (perhaps 90 per cent?).
Technorati was an “old new media” attempt to do this but seems to have fallen totally by the wayside. RSS readers are good but are personal, and not so good for discovering new blogs. Other, conversational platforms might be useful (eg Friend Feed) but I don’t think I’ve discovered a good new (to me) scientific blog by that means.
I admire very much the innovations of Nature Publishing Group’s Euan Adie – Postgenomic, Natureblogs (a tracker and ranker of all scientific blogs) and latterly Streamosphere. This type of approach, where you track blogs that “qualify” (nominated by users or anyone) and automatically aggregate conversations on a topic, seems to me to be a great way to go – if, as yet, somewhat preliminary.
There is also the “peer reviewed research” tag that some bloggers use for Serious Posts, but there are some problems as well as some good aspects to that system, too.
Maybe there are other ways to ensure filtering, reliability and quality of blogs.
For me, though I am an enthusiast for social media, I can also see that there are a lot of downsides to it, and I am not surprised that most scientists aren’t big users of it (for their work, that is.) As you say, “tons and tons of people in this country (and beyond) who have not entered blogs, or even the internet, into their daily routine” – but they will, when they see it can give them something useful, efficient and reliable – and interesting. I don’t think we are really there yet, when you look at the scientific blogosphere as it currently is, and what is popular in it. (Very broad generalisation – of course, there are some excellent science blogs and some excellent science blog posts, as well as very good blogs being put out by science writers and others employed by companies and organisations – but these are not your typical “freewheeling” blog that you and Adam Bly are meaning, I think?).
nods
I feel I should add something constructive here, but you two have done such a nice job.
Note to self: must check how well my suits fit.
Thanks for the great post: I’ve also been wondering how to incorporate blogs, wikis, and other new media into the sciences. In terms of spreading scientific ideas to the public, the TED conferences (which now post most of the lectures on-line) are steadily growing in popularity and showcase a range of speakers that talk about science, technology, design, and numerous other topics. People are starting to organize smaller TEDx events, which could offer a complementary approach to educating the public about new developments.
Maxine – Thanks so much for your wonderful comment! Yes, I agree that blogs can be spotty, but so can newspapers. Quite a few newspapers stateside still write about alien babies and miracle cancer cures. Those rags are certainly easier to spot and weed out from reputable publications than dumb blogs are from smart ones. I think that ScienceBlogs, NN, and the aggregator sites you mentioned go a long way in establishing the authority of a blogger and, if not vetting the content, then at least making it seem more reputable than that of independent blog. My comment about the people who don’t have internet in their daily lives was meant to point out that lots of people don’t have internet access at all, not that they don’t use it. There are huge swaths of the US that aren’t wired for high-speed internet. Those people still rely on slow dial up to check their email, if they go online at all. In ten years, hopefully, social media and blogs may be able to compete with traditional media in those locations (and beyond), but not just yet. The infrastructure isn’t there. If the groundwork in making blogs a viable and reputable alternative to newspapers is laid down now, we may see a very different science reporting landscape in the years to come.
Stephen – Somehow, I think you are ok. There is an odd trend with men and suits in the government – the size of one’s suit does not, generally indicate authority and expertise. A bigger suit does not make a bigger man. I think British tailors figured that out a long time ago!
Naveen – I love TED! You have a great point about using TED talks as an easy, accessible resource for people to learn about science. I hope that they start making DVDs or something. Whole collections on selected topics, almost like a miniseries? That would be great.
Oh I forgot Richard! Sorry. Helloooo! And thank you.
I’m glad that Bly stood up for the usefulness of what we are all trying to do here. I’m not surprised, however, that he was wearing a perfectly tailored suit. I think that his flagship ’zine does science something of a disservice by being the written version of his a-little-too-erudite approach to the natural world. That is, I think often times his arrogance works against his stated goal of making science more accessible to everyone.
I’ll add another example, I think that science reporting in newspapers has hurt the public’s understand of climate change. Blogs have been much more useful on the matter, if only they had the same reach.
Anna, great post. I start to get a better idea of what you are doing in your new job. And I’m glad I don’t have to wear suits at work.
He went on to say that all science reporting is slowly dying and that there remains no good way to get well-researched, accurate information out to the public. And I quote, “you can’t expect a blogger to do that, now can you!"
I had the pleasure to meet Jorge Cham from Piled Higher and Deeper last week, and he allowed me to use this comic for the Science Online London conference blog. Which nicely shows that we still have a long way to go in communicating science to our grandparents.
And I agree with Maxine about what she said about the state of the science bloggosphere. ResearchBlogging.org is another important resource for science blog post aggregation.
Agreed, Martin – “researchblogging.org” was what I meant when I wrote “peer reviewed research tag” – I got the name wrong.
You rock and are so right on with this topic. I especially agree with your comment…“However, I maybe wouldn’t have gone as far as he did in advocating a complete capitulation of efforts in trying to use traditional media for science communication. There are tons and tons of people in this country (and beyond) who have not entered blogs, or even the internet, into their daily routine. They deserve and need to know all the latest science as much as any geek with a broad-band connection.”
This was the very subject of one of my recent rants/blog posts: Reaching the under-served http://urban-science.blogspot.com/2009/06/reaching-under-served.html
You think science news in general is pitiful, it’s 100 times (or more) worse for media outlets for audiences like African-Americans and low-income inner city residents. The internet seems ubiquitous to us – we’re bloggers, academics, members of the middle class. But I know SO many more people who have
1)no regular access to the internet (at best they have a neighbor, occassional school or public library acces)
2) under-educated about the utility of the internet, how to use it effectively and therefore have no idea what a blog is or how to find info on the web including how to find a website/blog again — everything is serendipity.
3) have yet to comprehend that a computer or the internet can be used for something other than solitaire, games, celebrity gossip or chain letters.
Newspapers, especially special audience publications like Black Newspapers in major US cities, or African-American target magazines are THE primary source of national news. So we can’t give up on traditional media. Doing so would cut too many people off from general and science information, namely the poor and working class people.
oh, isn’t the Keck center nice?
Robert – Umm, yes. Adam Bly’s pomposity and arrogance was palpable. Seed Magazine is the GQ of science reporting. That being said, his magazine does make science seem cool. That’s a lot more than some science sections can say. The Wall Street Journal’s science section never makes me want to run out and read more on the subject. Not exactly stimulating.
Howard – Good point indeed. Reporters tend to go for the sensationalist angle (as pointed out so eloquently in the PhD comic that Martin linked to) whereas science blogs (the good ones) discuss the science behind the news.
Martin – Whew. Glad I am starting to make some sort of sense about my work. ResearchBlogging is a brilliant site. I use it a lot for inspiration when looking for trends in science.
DN Lee – Thanks so much for your comment. It’s a really really bad idea to remove all science and health news from newspapers, yet it’s happening. The sports stay, the fashion stays, but the science goes. I wish magazines would have expanded science sections. If the newspapers can’t support science reporting, maybe magazines can. If People magazine included just one science story amidst all the gossip, it would make a really big difference to people who don’t use the internet. It’s a shame that gossip will always outsell science. And yes, the Keck center is gorgeous!
@ Anna – Hope the interesting and stimulating conferences will greatly outnumber the tedious ones! The comments about Adam Bly’s tailored suits are quite funny to me, since I’ve observed a reverse snobbery about clothes in certain areas of biological research. IOW, the more luminous a research rock star you are, the worse (e.g. faded, stretched T-shirt or running tights) or more informally you can dress when giving seminars or talks at conferences (and I exclude Gordon Conferences and the like, where everyone dresses informally). The implicit message is often “If you’re worried about clothes and other such superficial trappings, then you’re not serious about your science”. Not that I necessarily agree with this message, but I’ve seen it acted out repeatedly, and occasionally heard it voiced explicitly. And sometimes I think the scientist truly is oblivious to even basic fashion concerns.
@ DN – Totally agree with your points and those expressed by Anna about limited access to the internet and blogs, and the continuing importance of traditional media, for many groups of low-income and under-served people. I live in a city that has some pretty significant economic disparities, and the hurdles I see for expanding science education and outreach in this community are quite different from those currently receiving attention in the science blogosphere. Few bloggers and commenters (apparently) want to discuss those hurdles or issues, though, as the focus is predominantly elsewhere, and I find it immensely frustrating, and ultimately pointless, to continue to engage the problems in the arena of the blogosphere. In my experience it’s more productive to simply engage in local science outreach and education efforts, which don’t involve the internet or blogs.
Bloody bloody god post. I won’t sully your comment thread with my usual blasphemous nonsense either. Good show, Dr. Kushnir.
bloody bloody god post. I won’t sully your comment thread with my usual blasphemous
snerk
…bugger off Grant….
Heh. Thanks for the comic relief. I needed it just then. The new job is feeling terribly old this afternoon…. and no amount of caffeine is helping.
Beer.
Or wine or gin.
Or all three.
It helps.
One does not tug at a beautifully fitting suit. One leaves it doing what it does.
Richard. Make mine a pint, please.
I no longer own a suit of any kind (correction: I own a tux, kept solely for fancy dress, and Jewish weddings).
the more luminous a research rock star you are, the worse (e.g. faded, stretched T-shirt or running tights) or more informally you can dress when giving seminars or talks at conferencesIn which case, I must outshine most galaxies. Shurely shome mishtake.
Perhaps you are a law unto yourself, Henry.
Nathaniel – Fair point. But in my experience, people who are trying to draw attention to themselves will tug at just about anything.
Henry – I have always thought you quite dapper, and always in your element. Shertainly.
Kristi – Your point rings loud and true – concerns about anything, anything besides the science (to the detriment of even personal hygiene) are often treated as frivolous by scientists themselves. I have made a point of never looking like a scientist. I don’t care if that makes me seem un-serious. It’s narrow-minded and silly. I have piercings and until recently, pink hair. If people choose to judge me by my hair instead of my work, then I want nothing to do with them or it. It sounds categorical, I know, but it made a few career choices crystal clear for me. Besides, my graduate advisor wore nothing but Burberry trenches, Ferragamo loafers, and Armani blazers. If I grow up to be like her, it won’t be such a bad thing.
Thanks, Anna.
If people choose to judge me by my hair instead of my work, then I want nothing to do with them or it
Absolutely right.