I’m on my way to London. Two reasons: to brave the leeches (estate agents) and to start my new job on Monday.
For those of you who don’t know/haven’t been listening, the new gig is at the Faculty of 1000, which can be described as a biomedical literature fitering service. If you want to quickly get at the important and exciting papers in the biological hegemony F1000 should be your first port of call. I’ve been tweeting some of the reviews we’ve published, and hopefully I’ll soon be keeping a shiny new weblog to keep you informed of what we’re doing to make the world a better place.
Enough advertising. I’ll still be here, and yes Cath, it’ll still be called ‘The Scientist’. I did toy briefly with the idea of calling this bar ‘The New Scientist’ — and both ‘The Publisher’ and ‘The Web 2.0 Maven’ lightninged across my tortured cerebellum — but I decided to stick with elegant minimalism. Quiet in the cheap seats, Henry.
I feel that although I did wander into science almost by accident, I have always been a scientist and always will be, even if I don’t actually work at the bench any longer. This new vocation is one I’m choosing, but that doesn’t change who I am; just as I know I’m a writer and a poet, despite hordes of angry LabLitters baying for my blood –or at least my ink.
So. New challenges, new opportunities; and yes, I’m very excited. Apparently, because all the staff that were related to BioMed Central have now left, my desk is in an otherwise empty bay, facing the window. I’m looking forward to it, and I’ll tell anyone who cares to listen all about it on Monday evening after we’ve goggled at Experimental Heart at Fiction Lab (you are all coming, aren’t you?).
Now, about that house…
Sent from my iPhone.
Good luck on both the job and the house front. I’m sure both will provide excellent blog fodder! (“On the job”?)
I too consider myself to still be a scientist, but I know that some people define “scientist” as someone who is actively doing research. Hence my original question 😉
I didn’t call myself a scientist when I was in publishing, for the same reason that Cath cites. But that was just a personal thing — I didn’t want to mislead anyone. I have to admit it’s been a real relief to be able to call myself one again; I never felt entirely right otherwise.
Yeah, it’s an interesting one. After all you don’t have to do research to be a scientist. I think it’s a state of mind, myself.
oh, the difference between a researcher and a scientist… if there is one that is. I use one word more frequently in groups with lay people. I am not sure why but that is how it has turned out. I think it has something to do with that I think scientist says “I have a PhDtraining” whereas researcher is a job description?! Doesn’t say that it is the truth though, only that end up like that.
I look forward reading more on the house and job. And good luck with both!!!
I’ve been tweeting some of the reviews…
And so the irresistible rise of Twitter continues. I’m still holding out. Did you see the Guardian’s April fool? WTF? OMG – LOL!
I say sir, less of that sort of talk. We have standards to maintain.
Best of luck Richard! Looking forward to hearing (well, reading) about it!
In my undergraduate days, “are you a scientist?” was just a way of discriminating between the hardworking (science) students and the lazy, good-for-nothing (arts) students. So I would have answered “yes” to that question. Similarly, on my postgrad library course I would have answered “yes”, to set me apart from the hordes of English and History graduates following that route.
Once starting work, I became less clear of the answer. In earlier years I would be inclined to say “yes”, to indicate that I fell broadly on the side of the scientific angels, I wanted to be part of the club (though never sure if I’d be accepted as a full member).
Nowadays I answer a definite “no”. I realise that entry to that club is reserved for those who’ve followed a different route – PhD, postdoc, etc etc. I might say I am “of science”, to indicate I have leanings that way, or that I “work in science”. But “A Scientist”?. No, not me.
I like the thought of scientific angels. But where were they when the confocal microscope swallowed my files yesterday?
Dancing on the head of your pipette tip?
Richard,
As I alluded to here on FriendFeed a few days ago, I contacted Mike Sefang and David Wallace to see if they would be interested in hosting another Open Science/Education podcast.
Mike said:- “Graham, Would love to continue our Open Science conversation via a podcast.Dave has kindly agreed to let us do that as an episode of eel podcast.”
I wondered whether you and Cameron would be interested in participating. I might sit this one out myself and co-ordinate it instead in terms of date/time & guests etc. Please let me know what you think, chaps.
Sounds good to me, Graham
What? I come in here looking for an opportunity to take a cheap shot at Richard (Oy! Aren’t you supposed to be out hitting the mean streets looking for a house?) and I find a random podcast invitation…umm yes, sounds cool, I meant to ask what you intended when you raised it on Friendfeed but then you said it was secret so I didn’t know how to..
Thanks guys. I’ll move the discussion over to FF.
Good luck with the new job!
Thank you Wilson!
I submitted a lovely essay on the topic of calling oneself a scientist…too bad NN didn’t deem me worthy of a blog…or maybe I never hit the send button…
Ah, you’ve sorted the iPhone out then?
Good luck with the house hunting – one of my least favourite activities (right up there with packing).
If you’ve got a nice empty area around you, I suggest placing boxes of your possessions at strategic locations, thereby making it impossible for anyone else to
colonizeoccupy the other desks. Richard Grant, F1000 editor, unassailable in his fortress of boxes. I like that idea.Richard, you certainly picked the right season to move!
About calling oneself a scientist – isn’t it interesting how we all hardly dare to assume the title? As if it is more hallowed than Ph.D. (which I had held in great esteem until I attained it myself, at which point it became banal). Occasionally I think to myself, hey, you’re a scientist! you got what you wanted! and then most the rest of the time I forget to be grateful for it in the press.
So, once a scientist, always a scientist? Is a scientist anyone who calls themself one? (Audra? BTW, while you’re waiting for NN to get sorted out, go ahead and start a blog elsewhere, and link to it a lot. It worked for RG and for me, although that was unintentional…)
Audra has an excellent blog elsewhere — but she doesn’t talk about science on it.