Scientists should write blogs. To quote from an article written by Nature (one of the world`s top science journals) "The standard scientific paper is irreplaceable as a fixed, archivable document that defines a checkpoint in a body of work, but it's static, it's very limited”. Scientists should continue to publish in journals, but they should provide a synopsis of their research via blogs.
When scientists communicate their research to the public, more of a discussion takes place. Whether it is climate change research or geo-engineering- people can formulate their opinions on the subject matter if it is made publicly available.
People from other academic communities learn about the research and about its applicability to society. As one author from Nature writes “academia is a marketplace of ideas”. As such, ideas can be more informally shared within the academy through wikis and blogs. Anyone can read them. Scientists produce material that is controversial at times and highly criticized by other members of the science community. Once scientists put a description of their paper on a blog, people far from the usual circle start thinking about the subject.
In the blogosphere, scientists analyze a topic and provide discussion over it- information that is educational and generally interesting. This discussion is usually more interactive, inclusive and engaging.
In terms of environmental debates, blogging is the ultimate information engine comprising arguments and opinions from various individuals. Environmental debates are current with blogging and the insight is more in-depth. A journal publication in a scientific paper, while highly scholastic, is limited to readers and analysis from other communities.
Blogging is also a challenge for some of these scientists because they have to communicate jargon and scientific terms to an audience that will understand them. This theoretically makes the scientist think more carefully about language and how to communicate more effectively to environmental debates. Generally we know that scientists are not the best communicators to the public. I think blogging can help with this.
One main risk identified by the Nature article is “many scientists don't blog because they fear it has a poor image and could damage their careers.” Blogging is not universally accepted in academia, supervisors caution their students not to share academic information because others may steal their ideas. Or, it may be dangerous to share your academic work online because others may publicly criticize it deeming the author untrustworthy, biased, ill-informed etc. These impede the process of blogging acceptability, but this will change over time.
The benefits of blogging are wide-ranging: sharing novel research ideas allows for collaboration. Scientists can work with others to produce ground-breaking scientific ideas. Blogging allows for other communities to read the work which can bring diverse opinions, knowledge and interests to the table.
Blogging in a sense does compromise the peer-review system (essential for journal publications). However, blogging is not meant to be an academic forum or research database, it is meant to generate discussion from all communities. Nature says “Once scientists come up with some sort of peer-review mechanism for blogs that increase their credibility, without diminishing their spontaneity, blogs will take off.”
Scientists may have their reservations about blogs but must understand its true purpose. A peer-review mechanism will add another dimension to the blogosphere ultimately making it more popular for the scientific community. But hopefully this does not transform blogging into an esoteric and inaccessible commentary base.
Key message: Blogging is for everyone. Scientists are researching very complex and salient topics that the public should be aware of. Keeping this information reserved in journals is not only exclusive, but disallows other academic communities to learn about the topic. Having said all this, please check out this science blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment