….or has that boat already sailed?
I’ve read many a blog posting or magazine article declaring that scientists are behind the curve, and we biologists have been slow to pick up the new online tools that are available. I’ve repeatedly asked for examples of other professions that are ahead of the curve that we can use as models (are there social networks of bakers sharing recipes and discussing ovens?), but haven’t seen much offered in response. I tend to think that it’s not a question of scientists being slow, it’s that the tools being offered aren’t very appealing. Note how quickly scientists moved from paper journals to online versions, which only took as long as it did because of the slow progress on the part of journal publishers getting their articles up on the web. The advantages of online journals were obvious, and in comparison, the advantages of joining “Myspace for scientists” are less evident.
Are social networks (“Meet collaborators! Discuss papers!”) ever going to see heavy use from the biology community? Or are we starting to see that they’ve run their course in general, and scientists were prescient in not wasting their time?
—article continues—
I have a friend who is predicting that the next, post-myspace generation is going to lead a backlash against the rampant exhibitionism of todays’ teens, the ones who grew up watching so much reality television. He’s predicting a radical privacy movement, where people start zealously guarding their information, rather than feeling a need to constantly spew it online. I’m not sure things will go that far, but we are seeing a movement away from completely open sharing and networking to smaller, more directed private efforts. Growth in social networks appears to have plateaued and is now declining. Layoffs are hitting the social media workplace. Wired Magazine has an article this month, about the death of blogs, and notes that well-known blogger Jason Calcanis has given up his public blog and now instead writes a private mailing list:
“Blogging is simply too big, too impersonal, and lacks the intimacy that drew me to it,” he wrote in his final post…That’s why Calacanis has retreated to a private mailing list. He can talk to his fans directly, without having to suffer idiotic retorts from anonymous Jason-haters.
Slashdot recently had a thread on personal privacy, and I was surprised at how many responded that they’d created Facebook accounts just so they could go in and remove tags and delete other people’s references to themselves. It reminded me of the NY Times article I blogged about here, with this warning about social networks:
“This is a common complaint I heard, particularly from people in their 20s who were in college when Facebook appeared and have never lived as adults without online awareness. For them, participation isn’t optional. If you don’t dive in, other people will define who you are. So you constantly stream your pictures, your thoughts, your relationship status and what you’re doing — right now! — if only to ensure the virtual version of you is accurate, or at least the one you want to present to the world.”
So, is there a backlash that’s beginning? Is the Myspace generation going to enter the working world and change everything, or are they already leaving these networks behind? As I’ve said often, we will see many aspects of Web 2.0 and social networking trickling into our daily lives, but only where they make sense and present a clear advantage. Most of what’s being offered to scientists right now fails on those counts. It’s not just a matter of time before the kids come in and take over, it’s a matter of having limited time, energy and attention spans and demanding they be put to something productive. While there is power in serendipity and casting a wide web, directed approaches are still more efficient and reliable, and right now, that trumps being ahead of the curve.
I’ll leave you with two opposing viewpoints, the first posted to an Ars Technica article on social networking for scientists, from the creator of LabSpaces:
“Even my boss, who is a leading researcher in the field of transcription, thinks that my website is not useful and doesn’t understand why science should spread to such media when scientific meetings, e-mail, and regular reading of literature spur great collaborations. Maybe I’m drinking my own kool-aid here, but I think these sites have a place, but I don’t think they’re going to be seen as effective until the current class of graduate students and post-docs become true scientists in their field. Technophobia is surprisingly rampant in science, I just hope the facebook/myspace generation can start to turn that around.”
The second, from writer Warren Ellis, discussing the attitudes held by his now 13 year old daughter, perhaps at the vanguard of the post-facebook/myspace generation:
Having accounts on social network services is evidently “sad.”
October 27, 2008 at 8:24 pm
[…] notsogoodphotography Are scientists missing the boat?;.: [Via Bench Marks] ….or has that boat already […]
October 27, 2008 at 8:27 pm
[…] October 27, 2008 — Richard by notsogoodphotography [Crossposted at SpreadingScience] Are scientists missing the boat?;.: [Via Bench Marks] ….or has that boat already […]
November 7, 2008 at 10:49 am
This is an excellent blog! Thank you.
I have tried tp get discussions going in Niche areas via blogs, i.e, like siRNA transfection efficiency. I know there are some interesting Wiki’s out there on methods (see Molecular Station).
I believe the challenge with sustained social networking is capturing comunities that resonate with one another. When I look at profressional social networking “like attracts like”. I wonder if a bioscience site that could parse to level of “Neuroscience Post Doc doing basic Alzheimer’s research would attract a sustainable” community.
I would also think that the creators would have to intitially advertise to capture a critical mass. There would also have to be enough pertinent info to capture and keep visitors. Facebook had to start somewhere. In the meantime, I’ll keep searching…
November 7, 2008 at 10:53 am
Hi Pete, thanks for the comment.
—I would also think that the creators would have to initially advertise to capture a critical mass.—
Advertising costs money, money requires a business model, and as far as I’ve seen, most social networking ventures lack both.
November 25, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Hey David, I just came across your blog during my weekly, “Who has linked to LabSpaces” google search. Looks like you posted this almost a month ago, so I’m not sure how I missed it, but thanks for the link and the quote.
Pete is 100% right. Obtaining the initial community is the hardest part and I don’t think any of the services out there have gotten to that point. There are three types of science networks out there: The linkedin clones, the research sharers, and the publication sharers. My site falls somewhere among all three.
Now, the linkedin clones are useless, so don’t even try visiting BioMedExperts, academia.edu, scilink, etc.
The research sharing sites have a decent idea, but as my boss would argue e-mail is just as good, if not better. I’d argue that the research sharing sites are playing with fire. All it would take would be one not very savvy phisher to post a faux link on a public area of the site and then be able to gain access to critical data. Banks haven’t gone social for a reason: you can’t trust the public, or your users.
Pub sharing sites like PubGet, Labmeeting, and Mendeley are interesting although when each has a DMCA link on the front page of their site, you can understand how these sites might eventually disappear as a result of legal problems. These Napsters for science are already generating a bad taste in many publishers’ mouths.
It will be interesting to see how these sites fare during these tough financial times. I guess sometimes there’s a benefit to being a one man show with no overhead 😉
November 26, 2008 at 12:11 am
Hello David,
I like your articles. You can always help me to find the main problems.
Could you tell me your opinion about these sites? I think the are excelent.
http://www.labroots.com
http://www.plosone.org (PLoS ONE)
http://www.scienceblog.com
openwetware.org
arxiv.org
Aren’t they worth useing?
December 2, 2008 at 9:33 am
Hi Lin, sorry I took so long to answer your comment, I’ve been traveling. I think each of the sites listed has some value, but it’s really going to be up to the individual to decide if it’s useful for them. The problem with sites of this ilk is that they require a decent sized community before they’re really useful, and that’s been the downfall of many of the science web 2.0 approaches. Kind of a catch-22, it’s not useful until lots of folks have joined, but no one will join if it’s not useful. Clearly the two standouts in your list are PLoS ONE, which has developed a new niche in science publishing and shown it can turn a profit, and Arxiv.org, which has had a profound impact on some areas of science.
December 2, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Hi all, thanks for this discussion! I’m one of the co-founders of Mendeley I would just like to comment on Brian’s post further above to get the image about Mendeley right 🙂
Mendeley is initially two things: Mendeley Desktop is free academic software for managing and sharing research papers. Mendeley Web is a free research network which lets you access your papers online, discover research trends and connect to like-minded researchers.
Mendeley Desktop is already a useful tool without any sharing functionalities (but with automatic metadata extraction). It’s free, and it can in many ways already replace existing, and very expensive PDF and citation management tools which are out there. If that leaves a bad taste in anyone’s mouth, I trust it’s because we do something better.
On top of that there’s Mendeley Web: here we are aggregating metadata (and this doesn’t have anything to do with the acutaly content of a paper) based on our users and display statistics about up-and-coming papers, most important authors and articles, or most read publications. We call this “A Last.fm for Research” – based on your reading behaviour Mendeley will aim to recommend you papers and introduce you to like-minded people based on your digital library and reading behaviour (once there’s enough data).
But just start with PDF and citation management, desktop- and web-based… we hope Mendeley can already take away some of the major problems researchers encounter.
Thanks
Jan
December 3, 2008 at 6:45 am
I think maybe blogs, Wiki and scattered sites are not good enough and what we need is an Unified Internet Science Platform on which scientists can do all there work, include recording scientific data, making collaboration, doing peer-review, publishing papers, etc. A platform which can put research, publishing and evaluation together so that scientists can do all their work on it.
December 3, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Lin, I guess I’m just not convinced that the internet and Web 2.0 is the complete answer for everything in the world of science. I think there are some interesting directions, and that likely in the future we’ll find some very valuable uses. But I have yet to see reason why someone would want to invest the time, money and effort needed to switch over their current operations, which work reasonably well, to an untested new system that doesn’t offer anything overwhelmingly compelling. If someone builds a system as you suggest, I’m sure scientists will evaluate it and decide if it’s worth their time and effort. I think one of the big stumbling blocks is that the bulk of science, the really important stuff, is the research, not the communication and interaction, and too many of these new ventures place the latter before the former.