Jumping on the collective suicide mission synchroblog bandwagon suggested by Martin Fenner titled Why we do blogging (or, to follow another discussion, Why we blog)
1. What is your blog about?
Ostensibly about theoretical population biology. Actually about that and other things.
2. What will you never write about?
Never say never. What? Oh balderdash.
3. Have you ever considered leaving science?
Yes. Then I remember what it was like to work in the real world. Actually in the real, non-scientific, non-academic world. In an investment bank. I knew then it was not a good idea to let investment banks look after your money. They employed me (insert Groucho Marx quote here). Good grief, Charlie Brown.
4. What would you do instead?
Funk drummer. Bus driver. Cosmonaut. House husband. (No particular order)
5. What do you think will science blogging be like in 5 years?
Prediction is futile in this age of rapid technological advance, Mr. Bond.
6. What is the most extraordinary thing that happened to you because of blogging?
So far, I wouldn’t describe anything in my blogging career as extraordinary. Things have certainly happened though. Arguments, discussions, jokes, fists waved impotently at computer/iphone screens, tears, laughter, joy, bad poetry. No repetitive strain injury yet though.
7. Did you write a blog post or comment you later regretted?
Plenty. But I try not to get hung up about it. So that might not be regret then. One thing I enjoy at the moment is the rapidity of blogging. Compared to traditional scientific publishing, we can express ourselves much more personally and emotionally. You definitely see a different side of people involved in science this way!
8. When did you first learn about science blogging?
Recently, in the last year. Through a friend of the beast
Although, having just read his martinmeme entry, I realise I’ve been reading science blogs for over 3 years, without thinking there was anything particularly different about them compared to other blogs. It’s still just a bunch of people shouting at each other through their fingertips.
9. What do your colleagues at work say about your blogging?
Not much yet. I can actually discuss things face to face with them, so there’s not much need to repeat myself.
extra credit
A poem about science
may be unclear
without reductionism.
Bravo, you’ve earned your extra credit :-)
But I try not to get hung up about it. So that might not be regret then. An interesting take on having perspective…
Thanks for the entry!
Compared to traditional scientific publishing, we can express ourselves much more personally and emotionally. You definitely see a different side of people involved in science this way!
Good point – one of the better aspects of science blogging!
After reading the various martinmeme posts including yours I realize that question #5 is kind of
stupidimpossible to answer. Thanks for your post.Martin, we need impossible questions, to go with the six impossible things we all do before breakfast!
This blogging idea was great- I have really enjoyed reading all the posts. Including yours, Mike. Move over Daniel Craig. Or do I mean Homer Simpson?
Thanks, folks. Except Maxine – what did you just call me? Having read the others as well, I notice I skipped the other part of question 10:
10.0 How the heck do you have time to blog and do research at the same time?
My schedule is highly variable – depending much more on my ability to think straight and concentrate than sit in front of lab equipment carrying out repetitive tasks for hours at a time. In fact, once the hard thinking is done, it can be a real relief to start coding for a new project. Anyway, this leaves me with some “free” time when at work, as my brain warms and cools on a chaotic trajectory, which is when I have manic outbursts on blogs.