The Next Science

Adam Elenbaas
228480554_2d70fdc5d0_m.bmp

A new Scientific American blog proposes the idea of "Science Version 2.0" and scientific network journalism. The idea is fairly simple. The World Wide Web is allowing for scientists to publish their ideas much faster. The new blog on Scientific American asks readers to sound off about whether or not this is a good thing for the field.

There are tangible benefits. Young scientists can publish research before their official papers are published. Untrained scientific enthusiasts, like me, can link to articles and stories at lightning speed, including shamanic or spiritual spins that empirical scientists might be unlikely to consider. On the other hand, some might see it as nothing more than spreading gossip at the lunch table.

Some are skeptical and believe that this is just the way to muck up the integrity of the scientific method. Others suggest that it is the evolutionary equivalent of the Darwinian coliseum for scientific innovation - some ideas will survive while others will die. The ones that die are meant to die, and the ones that spread are the healthiest ones we have.

The debate on Scientific American is also unique in the way that it offers a catalogue of the scientific network journalism projects that are out there already, waiting to be explored.

 

Pictures courtesy of: http://flickr.com/photos/orbitgal/ and

http://flickr.com/photos/eerkmans/

Comments

Darwin-win situation

Submitted by Morgan Maher on Fri, 01/25/2008 - 18:02.

Interesting. Darwinian coliseum, perhaps. Yet this may encourage cooperation over competition.

Or, it's another example of the evolutionary equivalent of a contemporary Cambrian explosion of ideas, behaviours, communication and so forth.

cool stuff

Submitted by Entropic Blur on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 22:28.

It's cool that you chose to pursue your own interests instead of obligating yourself to the ivory tower. I have been thinking a lot lately about "fringe science" and how better to open communications between those in the academic and entrepreneurial sectors. There are very many good and interesting ideas that don't fall into the technical science region, and then there are some ideas that are a little too far down the rabbit hole. IMHO, it all deserves a good listen so that we can benefit from a balance of critical and creative thinking.

 

There are still predefined boundaries to "Science 2.0". I don't know of anyone in my astronomy department who reads articles about astronomy outside of astro-ph (the pre-print service). I propose some organized structure for scientific rogues! But more importantly, rogues deserve exposure and feedback from more traditional scientists. Do you think so too?

Namaste. --EB--

Ecology is Integrative

Submitted by BradCharlesMelzer on Thu, 01/31/2008 - 13:27.
The beauty of the science of ecology is that it encompasses most other disciplines and the boundaries keep reaching further out. We are at a threshold (a true revolution) in the biological sciences. Biological information is doubling every five years and our understanding is advancing somewhere behind that threshold. Biologist in different disciplines all over the world are working together more than ever before because the questions are leading them "out of the box". The concept this article proposes is a good one in that all disciplines could be informed by outside influences (a good thing) but we have to be wary of shit science at the same time. A situation like this could lead to the loss of rigor; one of the most important aspects of science.