I was very pleased to come across this blog post by David Crotty – “Science and Web 2.0: Talking About Science vs. Doing Science”.
It covers a lot of the ambivalence I have about holding a blog. I wonder if I was one of the 40-odd that was updated in the month surveyed? Perhaps – but barely. I was trying to do – or at least to favor the doing of – science.
One commenter mentioned:
[Blogging conferences and by extension, blogging] might attract scientists who have a subspecialty but also have a general interest in science (e.g. the communication aspect) so they end up talking about their common interest (communication) and not their field of science.
This is definitely true for me. I can count the number of times I actually discuss developmental biology, or molecular biology, on a hand or two. Mostly because talking about what I love to do is, curiously, not very interesting for me – it’s teaching something to a faceless audience, and hard to tell if I am putting them to sleep (as opposed to an amphitheatre) when they don’t comment back. Which is often the case.
I suspect Jason’s suggestion to have Science Online-style sessions at specialist conferences would work at some and not others. Some conferences are hardly aware of the existence of blogs and Twitter and other live-transmission, and are frightened of the implications. Others appear to be less so.
However, I came across an interesting perspective. Self-promotion in blogs, which we all do to some extent, can be helpful to rally people around ideas. The Open AccessOpen Science movements were certainly helped by the personalities of certain individuals who have promoted good ideas.
As mentioned:
When you promote ideas, you give people something to cheer for. You give people a cause to support. People, in many ways, are selfish. They promote the things that make them feel good. Your accomplishments aren’t likely to make them feel good, but your ideas do. Your ideas might inspire hope, thought, or action . . . but as a general rule, good ideas inspire something.
This weekend, I stated in fine company my opinion that “Hypotheses are cheap”. That was taken as a slapdown, which it was not intended to be, but simply a statement that I find it incredibly easy to think of lots of ways to explain the world. Some of those ways are testable.
I have hit on something then, should I ever suddenly crave fame. When I no longer have the means to actually carry out my research because NONE of my grants get funded for years on end, I should just generate ideas. Lots and lots of hypotheses. They have to be good, too ground-breaking to get funded, but not completely off the wall. I’m actually pretty good at that.
(Remember, although few ideas are genuinely unique, your expression can be.)
Well, even ideas can be unique if they are based on sufficiently arcane facts. Unique is no gauge of quality, but it helps in getting a patent.
Actually, reading through the comment thread, I see that some are of the opinion that ‘the sharing of knowledge is power.’ (teaching is noble and will earn you love and respect – not sure I buy that) and that women are often brought up to be useless in self-promotion (well, yes, generally).
[Women] aren’t just bad at behaving like arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks. They are bad at behaving like self-promoting narcissists, anti-social obsessives, or pompous blowhards, even a little bit, even temporarily, even when it would be in their best interests to do so.
During a meeting I attended this week, a team-building activity was a variant on Truth or Lie? (as opposed to Truth or Dare, which would have also been interesting in that company). I was sweating bullets and made a remark to that effect – I hated the idea of lying (even half-truthing) to people whom I respected. And then I did it just fine. So, I’m not yet lawyer material, but it might explain that I yam where I yam today.
A talker, more than a doer, but a doer nonetheless.




