I finally downloaded my recordings from the ScienceOnline 2011 conference that I attended back in January. Here are a couple of sessions for your listening pleasure. These were recorded using my Livescribe pen so the audio is passable if not brilliant.

The first is the Death to Obfuscation workshop, featuring Carl Zimmer and myself. It’s on writing about science for a broad audience, who isn’t obliged to read your stuff. We consider basic elements and pitfalls that writers need to consider, from the level of individual words and sentences, to paragraphs and pieces. The audio’s a bit tinny because the pen was near a projector and the audience questions are a bit muffled, but you can hear pretty much everything that Carl and I are saying. I’ve cut out a bit near the end with a written exercise because the sound of 70 people writing for 5 minutes isn’t particularly gripping.

The second recording comes from a session on online science journalism, asking whether it’s better or merely different. With me on the panel were arch-writers Virginia Hughes, David Dobbs, John Rennie and Steve Silberman. We flitted through a wide variety of topics. It’s worth it just to listen to John’s passionate rabble-rousing speech somewhere in the middle.

A couple of house-keeping things.

Firstly, if you cast your eyes a few pixels upwards, you’ll notice the snazzy new banner. All the Discover blogs now have them to give us a bit more of an individual feel. I love mine/them. The designer’s done a great job with reconciling the “rocket science” bit with the fact that I write almost entirely about biology. You can see the rest of the logos on the sidebar, and I’ll probably be doing a Cafepress store at some point.

Secondly, you might have noticed that there’s also a “Support Science Writers” box in the sidebar. I’ve added this in light of my new initiative to voluntarily pay for the best science writing that I read. In the comments, people suggested various ways that these micropayments could be done easily, but all the best suggestions involve adding some sort of code to one’s site.

While a simple solution may take some more work, I’ve implemented these Paypal buttons as a temporary fix. The top one goes to the writers I pick every month, distributed equally (any donations this month will go to February’s picks, and so on). The bottom one goes to me and I’ll match a third of the donations and send that to the chosen writers too.

Both go to my Paypal account but they’re tagged differently so I can sort through all the donations and distribute them easily. This isn’t ideal by any means, but like many things on the Internet, I thought I’d give it a go and see what happens. So if any of you would like to support NERS or any of the other great blogs that I link to, please feel free to contribute. There is, of course, no expectation to do this.

For reference, here are the people who I’ve donated to this month:

• Human (amphibious model): living in and on the water, by Greg Downey
• Circadian clock without DNA–History and the power of metaphor, by Bora Zivkovic
• Hidden Light: The Visual Language of an Autistic Photographer, by Steve Silberman
• Iron-deficiency is not something you get just for being a lady, by Kate Clancy
• Ancestor Worship, by Brian Switek
• Running out of antibiotics — and other drugs too, by Maryn McKenna
• How IBM’s Watson Computer Excels at Jeopardy!, by John Rennie
• Saving Ethiopia’s Church Forests, by Delene Beeland
• The Mere Existence of Whales, by Carl Zimmer
• Science education for all, by Alice Bell

“That’s brilliant. I’d pay good money for that.”

I’ve been saying this a lot recently. My RSS reader, Twitter stream and other sources of incoming goodies have been chock-full of stand-out pieces – posts that are long, thorough, beautifully written, and most of all, unpaid. Have a look at Greg Downey’s opus on the biology of holding your breath, or Delene Beeland’s piece on Ethiopia’s church forests, or Brian Switek’s post on human origins, or Bora Zivkovic’s tour de force on clock genes, or Steve Silberman’s… well pretty much everything by Steve Silberman.

I read these pieces in amazement that their writers should stick them up for free, when so many others pen far lesser works for a salary. Clearly, the writers are happy to provide free content and they get various advantages out of it. But I absolutely believe that good writers should be paid for good work. I read these pieces and think, “That took a lot of effort. It’s a shame they didn’t get paid for that. I’d pay good money for that.”

And then, last week, I thought, “Hey, why don’t I pay good money for that?”

So I’m going to. As of this month, I am putting my money where my mouth is and trying to set an example. The basic idea: every month, I’m going to choose ten pieces that I really enjoyed and  donate £3 to the author as a token of my appreciation.

(more…)

Last week, I decided to play with an online tool called Dipity, which allows you to create nifty interactive timelines. I was looking for a way of bolstering my coverage of a new paper about reprogrammed stem cells, and I thought that a timeline would help to show how fast-paced and exciting this field of research is.

Like a lot of things I do on the Internet (including this blog), it was a random punt in the dark – a way of having a go at something fun and seeing what would happen.

Here’s what happened.

(more…)

In the wake of the ScienceOnline 2011 conference, a familiar spectre has reared its inevitable head – the echo-chamber argument. The central question is this: do science bloggers solely speak to each other and those with a pre-existing interest in science, or are we capable of reaching a broader selection of readers? As Emily Anthes asked, “Who are we really writing for? Is it just for each other? Are the debates we’re having really reaching a wider audience?”

This is a worthwhile question and I’d be disappointed if a gathered group of scientists and journalists – two professions who are paid to be skeptical – didn’t ask it. The concern is also real. With newspaper sales on the decline, people aren’t exposed to science stories nestled among other topics at the turn of the page. It’s hard to achieve the same effect in the heavily tagged and increasingly specialised world of the internet. Surely, it is said, only people already interested in science will only subscribe to a science blog’s RSS feed, or click on the Science section of the Guardian or the New York Times.

This is a fairly limited view of how the modern internet works. The same issue came up when I ran a panel on online journalism at ScienceOnline 2010, and I have been writing the same response ever since. Here’s what I wrote last year:

Towards the end of last year, Carl and I covered a story on the sexual conflicts of ducks, where scientists studied the massive, corkscrew-shaped penises of drakes by getting them to unfurl said mighty organs into a variety of glass tubes. The videos became an internet sensation and the story was linked to from Boing Boing, Metafilter, Reddit, Digg and all manner of forums. Tens of thousands of people watched ducks penetrating flasks, and perhaps a fraction of them even picked up some science while they were at it. As Carl said, “Duck fetishists can learn about sexual selection.”

Of course, sex has always sold, but this case study highlights the ability of the web to find massive audiences, if the right story is presented in the right way. It also shows how science stories can automatically find their way to people who aren’t necessarily interested in science. “Be a virus and infect people’s minds,” urged Carl, and there are many examples of people taking up his advice. Because of his science tattoo series, Carl got to talk about science in an interview with a tattoo magazine. A story I wrote about nanotechnology in 17th century swords turned up in all sorts of places, from Reddit to role-playing forums to online blacksmithing communities. Ars Technica itself uses an interest in technology as a hook to get people from gamers to IT specialists to read science stories.

This culture of sharing is going to be increasingly important, especially as social media becomes increasingly popular. You don’t expect people to come to you. You go to where they are or, better still, you get other people to take you there.

When I link to a post on Facebook or Twitter, it reaches a few thousand people. Some of them will pass the link on to their friends and followers, and it ripples outwards. At every iteration, the stories land in front of more potential eyes, with increasingly diverse interests. The big question is whether these ripples can duplicate or replace the effect of randomly coming across science stories in newspaper pages. I believe they can. The benefits may be relatively limited for the moment but they will grow as the use of social media matures.

(more…)

ScienceOnline 2011 is over and the daze of normality resumes. It’s hard to describe the feeling to people who have never been to the conference. Put it this way: you spend four days in a mental endurance event set in a parallel universe that’s largely similar to this one, except for the fact that all conversations are interesting.

As I said last year, ScienceOnline was a valuable chance to meet friends for the first time. It gave us a chance to take relationships that had begun on a screen and cement them in the flesh. It allowed us to trade ideas with like-minded people, and to gaze deeply into our navels so that we can do better at the things we love. As someone said on Twitter, it’s more like a family reunion than a conference.

The sessions were consistently great and the unconference format works wonders. Even when I wasn’t a panellist, I felt no less involved in the sessions I attended. (I’ll stick some write-ups later after catching up with regular blogging and I’ll collate some links to what others write.)

Some people have criticised Scio11 for selling out so quickly, with the implication that it must cater for a cliquey audience. But many of the delegates were first-timers; at least half of the people I talked to weren’t there last year. The reason why ScienceOnline is so successful is that the people who are there are the ones who really want to be. They regularly engage with the online community, they take part in discussions throughout the year, and they are ready and waiting to sign up. This doesn’t weaken the conference; it makes the conference. It creates a fantastic grassroots, everyone-mucking-in atmosphere. It’s a conference by the community for the community. I wouldn’t want it any other way.

*******

Most inspiring moment: The keynote speech from Robert Krulwich from NPR’s RadioLab, who combines storytelling, sound effects and humility into a singular type of aural poetry. Inspiring and depressing in equal measure, the talk was a great reminder of how far I have yet to go.

Biggest fanboy moment: The aforementioned Robert Krulwich (him again?) came up to me after the Friday night dinner and told me that he reads this blog and really likes it. Outside, I was the epitome of smooth gratitude. Inside: crazy happy skippy dance. <waves at Robert>

Most startling moment: During the visit to the Duke Lemur Center, I can only assume that I antagonised one of the ruffed lemurs in some way because with no warning, it started making an alarm call that sounded like a sonic nuke going off in a narrow echoing corridor. “Show us on the lemur doll where the science writer touched you…”

Best souvenir: An awesome It’s Only Rocket Science mug that Karen James bought for me from the Kennedy Space Center.

Autograph score: Three. I have signed copies of Written in Stone by Brian Switek, Superbug by Maryn McKenna and The Science of Kissing by Sheril Kirshenbaum.

Best opening line to a conversation I walked into: “Why does Chewbacca have a crossbow?”

Worst opening line to a conversation I walked into: “We’re discussing Noam Chomsky.”

*******

Once again, I am utterly indebted to Bora Zivkovic and Anton Zuiker for giving me the chance to take part and for putting their blood, sweat and tears into making such an incredible event.

And finally, it was great to catch up with old friends and colleagues, to put some new faces to familiar names. For their amicable chat and great company, I thank  Carl Zimmer, SciCurious, David Dobbs, Alice Bell, Sheril Kirshenbaum, Christie Wilcox, Janet Stemwedel, John Rennie, Kaitlin Thaney, Maryn McKenna, Virginia Hughes, Steve Silberman, David Kroll, Brian Switek, Ivan Oransky, Hillary Rosner, Emily Anthes, Tom Levenson, Amos Zeeberg, Richard Grant, Jenny Rohn, Alok Jha, Liz Neeley, Arikia Millikan, DeLene Beeland, Sophia Collins, Karen James, Clifton Wiens, Kate Clancy, Seth Mnookin, Carmen Drahl, Colin Schultz, Jason Goldman, Christine Russell, Andrea Kuszewski, Olivia Koski, Hannah Waters, Craig McClain, Kevin Zelnio, Miriam Goldstein, Joanne Manaster, Marie-Claire Shanahan, John Timmer, Chris Rowan, Lucas Brouwers, Brian Mossop, Glendon Mellow, , James Hyrnyshyn, Jag Bhalla, Taylor Dobbs, Jamie Vernon, Robert Krulwich, Tyler Dukes, Catherine Anderson, Dan Ferber, Robin Lloyd, Tim de Chant, Paul Raeburn, Mark Hahnel, Scott Rosenberg, Diane Kelly, Matt Soniak, Amanda Moon, Eric Michael Johnson, Dave Mosher, John Logsdon, Nancy Shute, Zuska, Catherine Zivkovic, Chris Mooney, Peter Janiszewski, Emily Finke,Allie Wilkinson, Viv Raper, Dave Munger, Josh Rosneau, Misha Angrist, David Orr, Melody Dye, Greg Gbur, Lisa Jarvis, Holly Bik, Stacy Baker, Carin Bondar, John Hawks, Brian Malow, Mike Lisieski, Jeremy Yoder, Jim Hutchins, Psi Wavefunction, Holly Tucker, Walter Jessen, Steve Mirsky, Emily Willingham, Maia Szalavitz, Lyndell Bade, Robert Mitchum, Karyn Traphagen, Michael Barton, Pascale Lane, Jason Thibeault, Krystal D’Costa, Rhitu Chatterjee, Darlene Cavalier, Lou Woodley, Stephanie Zvan, David Shiffman and the many, many other people who I’ve undoubtedly forgotten because it’s late and I’m jetlagged. If I have forgotten you, you’re probably called Emily or John.

Photo by Lou FCD

The arsenic bacteria story continued to roll on over the last week, but at a slower pace. Many of the big issues have already been covered at length, including the paper itself, the media hype, the implications for journalism, peer review, and so on (see my post-mortem from last week for a timeline; and my original post and first short round-up for background). For this round-up, I’m focusing on some of the fresher perspectives:

(more…)

It was the big news that wasn’t. Hyperbolic claims about the possible discovery of alien life, or a second branch of life on Earth, turned out to be nothing more than bacteria that can thrive on arsenic, using it in place of phosphorus in their DNA and other molecules. But after the initial layers of hype were peeled away, even this extraordinary claim started falling under suspicious glances.

I’ve already talked about the untrammelled hype that surrounded this paper and I won’t retread that ground again. This is a chronological roundup of the criticism against the science in the paper itself, ending with some personal reflections on my own handling of the story (skip to Friday, December 10th for that bit).

(more…)

Whenever I compile my list of weekly links, I usually end up with more articles from mainstream news sources than I do from science blogs. When I do link to blogs, I tend to go with those written by professional journalists and science writers than those written by scientists. That’s not a reflection on the quality of their writing. I do it simply because I write this blog for a general audience and I want to direct them to material of a similar type. And a lot of science blogs can be far too opaque for the average reader.

There is much talk of blogs being part of a golden age of science writing, where learned people can talk directly to large audiences. I certainly believe this, but I see jargon as one of the biggest barriers in the way. Many blogs fall into the trappings of scientific writing: passive voice, laboured constructions, and roundabout sentences (see this wonderful list for translations of the most common offenders).

And then, there are the words themselves. Some are technical, others are simple words clothed in extra syllables (“armamentarium” anyone?) Every field has its own list; they can be so familiar that it beggars belief that people could not understand them. Skeptical bloggers throw about terms like RCT and placebo, and catchphrases like “correlation is not causality”, as if everyone knows what they mean. Technological writers casually speak of visualisations, infographics and crowdsourcing. Have a look at Carl Zimmer’s famous list of “banned words” for more examples.

(more…)

Tonight I took part in a debate at the Royal Institution of Great Britain entitled “Should science journalists takes sides?” The event was chaired by Fiona Fox of the Science Media Centre and panellists included myself, Mark Henderson from the Times, Ceri Thomas from BBC’s Today programme and Steve Rayner, the Director of the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society. This is a slightly extended version of what I said during my five minutes of the debate.

The title of this debate opens itself up to multiple interpretations: whose ‘side’ are we talking about? It is clear to me that science journalists should not take the side of any particular scientist, of a specific idea, or even of science itself. But it is imperative that we take the side of truth. That may seem obvious but many of the strictures of traditional journalism are incompatible with even that simple goal.

The problem comes from a desire to be objective or neutral. This is what Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University, famously calls the View from Nowhere. You’re detached from the proceedings that you report on. You don’t take sides. You watch from afar. The problem is that reality doesn’t work like that and a commitment to the view from nowhere has many problems.

(more…)