Teasers for day two of ScienceOnline2010

By Grant Jacobs 17/01/2010

As most of you know now you can follow some of the presentations and discussions of the ScienceOnline2010 conference (unconference, as they say) on-line via live video feed and on twitter (on the direct feed, which has fewer posts) or Friendfeed.

A few individuals are providing commentary/reporting streams on particular talks. @docfreeride did an excellent job covering the story/book pitching presentation.

Below is a random collection of twitters to entice you on to tomorrow’s sessions, in no particular order or sense!

You’ll have to believe me when I say that this is a small subset of what’s there. Some provide links to blog posts related to the meeting. My own comments on these are [in square brackets].

For those not familiar with twitter: The first “word” in each entry is the twitter alias of the writer. ‘RT’ means ‘re-tweet’; they’re relaying on someone else’s message. “Tweets” (as they’re called) starting with ‘@somename’ are replies to that person. I’ve removed the #scio10 hashtags in the interest of space and clarity.

I’m not advocating the thoughts in these comments, nor saying that I agree with all of them!

You’re welcome to share your thoughts on these in the comment section below.

Plenty of food for thought and humour here. More conversation starters than you can shake a truckload of sticks at!

RT @lyndellmbade: “Media’s job is not to teach science literacy”…time for scientists to be active in sci literacy.

@cromercrox Hollywood tend to redo 1940s SF – SF has evolved in the meantime, modern is very good

Ouellette: Pharmaceutical people don’t want to talk to Hollywood at all. Ever.

Connie St. Louis: Some scientists have lost the trust of journalists because they promote futuristic ideas that aren’t real yet.


V.hard to undo harm from papers that’ve already been published, even if they’re retracted. Same for pieces/posts, despite comments?

@christineottery With science, you want to consider the science and not the person. But what about mavericks (e.g. Margulis)?

Ottery: Journalists want to find scientific Mavericks on fringes with amazing break throughs. Sadly those types are often cranks.

Hadn’t heard this RT @drval: St. Louis: Embargoes get > eyeballs on articles; if something obviously wrong, paper can be pulled

Jonathan proposes 5 kinds of openness in science publishing; cost, timing of access, location, reuse, copyright, who archives


Gee: “News editors are demons and devils” News editor sitting next to him: scoots over one seat

Interesting point: peer review is anonymous. Interviews with journalists are public–this is a conflict. Trust Discussion

RT @lalakat: #scio10 Really? Scientists are so tenderfooted they wouldn’t give str8 feedback about the scientific content of a colleague …

@LizScherer I’m all for mult POVs, but when 1 is fully debunked & incorrect,all you do is fuel public confusion. It’s irresponsible.

@drval Embargoes no longer work to let pubs control access, coverage. Short term result: conflicting, incomplete coverage.

RT @nancyshute: Meetings that restrict Tweeting of prepub results are becoming a real problem for journos, says @ivanoransky

RT @edyong209 Ouellette:Hollywood can inspire people 2b scientists,promote +ve public perceptions But not interested in teaching sci

Q: “do you check your Twitter feed or pee first in the morning?” Silence, then a brave soul: “Both at same time.” Relieved Laughter.

We already have recognized “experts” that are ignored. Why will Internet experts have anymore credibility.

Re: Trust and Critical Thinking — Is the answer curating? http://bit.ly/60xDbV http://bit.ly/5n5HGp

has kept me so busy I have not had time to blog this cool new science: ‘gators breathe like birds http://tinyurl.com/ybf9yct

Yrs of vet school paid off when I got 2 tell @carlzimmer pigs have corkscrew penises too (& I didn’t learn that from text books)
[Can any veterinarians or pig farmers confirm this?!]

[There’s a lot about duck penises (they’re corkscrew shaped, with the females genitalia matching). Turns out to be the replies of a contest; first valid reply via Twitter wins a book. Outsiders didn’t see the questions, so you’d get this rain of decidedly strange posts… Later on there was this gem of a post and reply:]

nancyshute @MeredithGould We are relying on @carlzimmer, the Boswell of duck penises.

MeredithGould @nancyshute I think I’d like to talk with @carlzimmer ‘s mother at some point, so to speak.

hleman Important-more on forum on Open Access. Elsevier has weighed
in–perfect timing for reading by us at http://bit.ly/4N6K3E

[Well worth reading if you’re a serious Open Access buff. Some players names have replied.]

RT @drval: Elsevier rep says scientists are “anti-social” because they don’t want people to steal their research ideas.

0 Responses to “Teasers for day two of ScienceOnline2010”