A day or two ago I wrote about an experiment I did last week, that wasn’t spectacularly ground-breaking but was a great deal of fun (all right, so maybe I don’t get out as much as I should).
It set me to thinking about how much detail it is appropriate to include in weblog entries. And then it set me to thinking again, after doing a bit of technorating, because the post had been picked up by the OpenWetWare people.
The ‘Green Fluorescent Wow!’ experiment (HT to Peter) was pretty simple and straightforward: An easy cloning experiment with a slight cleverness in choice of reagents, no IP and nothing particularly smart. But I’ve got other experiments underway that are clever, and potentially very exciting.
So can I write on my weblog, either here under my real name or there pseudonymously, about them? And how much detail can I give? If I say “My protein seems to do something odd to cell-motility”, is that a elegant sufficiency of detail? Surely people will get bored with generalizations, but am I right to worry, as one of our PIs does, that I might compromise my project by posting too much detail? Should I be posting pictures of cells that are doing odd things?
It’s not a case of “Can I trust you bastards not to steal my work?” but balancing the ideal of ‘open source science’ with the need to publish before anyone else. I have responsibilities — to the boss and to my cow-orkers —, but I also want to share the fun and joy and heartache of this vocation.
What would you do, chums?
No easy answers. My random thoughts follow.
First question – real name or pseudonym? Whatever you’re comfortable with. Do you have a particular reason for anonymity – don’t want to be linked with a workplace, embarassment? If so, noone minds an anonymous blogger. If not, the rule is – don’t post it on the blog if you wouldn’t say it in person.
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that all science blogs have to be open science blogs. One way to push open science is certainly to blog it, but it’s early days for the movement. We all realise that there are potentially barriers to just putting all your data on the web. Take it slow, formalise what you want to do, talk it through with others, debate the pros/cons with your colleagues.
There are many ways to blog science besides writing about what you did in the lab today. A few include (1) reviewing papers that you find interesting, (2) pointing people to useful resources, (3) writing how-tos and tutorials for people in your field, (4) discussing general research issues such as funding and career advice.
I think it’s quite possible to write about your work in an interesting way without going into specifics or disclosing too much. Concentrate on good, clear interesting writing and decide on a theme for your blogging – random “what I did/saw/thought today” posts are not very compelling. Decide on your target audience. Is the blog primarily for your benefit, a sort of research diary, or would you like others to benefit and learn from it?
One day all science will be open, but just now we’re all taking baby steps towards it. Don’t worry about it too much – just concentrate on developing your style and enjoying it.
In addition to everything Neil just said, another aspect that is not pursued enough is to add a human element to research. Say you publish a paper, or do a cool experiment. Why did you make the choices you did? Where did you start and where did you end up. The stuff that doesn’t get into a paper.
I must agree with the last two comments, there are some very important points regarding disclosure and such. I also feel that the personal touch makes the science (even) more appealing.