Ruminating about blogging an area that doesn’t easily relate to the public.^[1]

Last year I introduced the new science blogging network at Scientific American.

David Kroll wrote a post introducing this network, too, and noted the lack of chemists in their line-up.

Bora replied in the comments:

I did struggle about it. People with chemistry background whose blogs I like (and think they fit in my network vision) tend not to blog about chemistry much. Or are taken by other networks, or unwilling to join one. But majority of chemistry bloggers write for each other, very inside baseball I cannot understand, thus not really fitting my vision (or SciAm focus on broad audiences).

(Bora co-ordinates the Scientific American blogs.)

Janet Stemwedel also added some thoughts:

a further question to explore, beyond who’s blogging and who isn’t (and why that might be), is who’s blogging as a chemist versus who’s blogging about chemistry. (Undoubtedly, this would prompt further discussion about what exactly counts as ’blogging about chemistry’ – the whole current peer reviewed research versus life in the tribe of chemists versus musings on chemistry in everyday life line-drawing. Because we seem to like line-drawing for some reason.) [Her emphasis.]

This struck a chord with me.

Read the rest of this entry »