Thursday, September 11, 2008

Science Blogging in TREE

I don't know how I missed this because I am a regular reader of TREE, but John Wilkins of Evolving Thoughts has published an article on scientific blogging in the August issue.

One of the excellent points the paper makes is, "Blogging is also a way to demythologize science. Unlike laws and sausages, the public should see science during its manufacture, but the lay public is generally ill-equipped to interpret what they see, and science bloggers play a crucial role here. Bloggers with a deeper knowledge of the topic, or of science in general, can place studies in a context of prior work, thereby correcting or avoiding the myths and pigeonholes of science journalism."

I agree completely. Part of my reasoning for starting this blog was to connect with folks who would otherwise not hear about my work or work that I think is important.

The article ends by saying, "The academic research and teaching communities for science and related fields need to see blogging as more than a casual hobby, as core outreach for their science. It is an effective way for scientists to counter the misunderstandings, deliberate and otherwise, of popular culture. Not only graduate students, but more tenured professionals, need to engage in this to ensure that their science, and the science of others, is in the public eye."

I would love it if my colleagues all had active blogs, as I could see what they are up to, what issues they are struggling with and what they are thinking about at any given time.


  1. I think science should be more transparent to the not-a-scientist crowd also, however many science blogs are either rather boring, or are rather technical.
    I'm a young biologist and at times I get lost and/or bored when I read blogs out of my area of interest, I can't imagine what my sister would think (completely non science).
    In essence I think the blogs need to be more captivating and more geared to the non scientist. Not a short order...

    I applaud all who are trying though...

  2. nice catch, John! I didn't see this either. thanks!