{"id":135,"date":"2008-05-25T09:27:47","date_gmt":"2008-05-25T09:27:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/2008\/05\/25\/on_the_nature_of_networking\/"},"modified":"2008-05-25T09:27:47","modified_gmt":"2008-05-25T09:27:47","slug":"on_the_nature_of_networking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/2008\/05\/25\/on_the_nature_of_networking\/","title":{"rendered":"On the Nature of Networking"},"content":{"rendered":"

It is today perhaps taken for granted that the potential for the most exciting (dare I say ‘ striking<\/a> ‘?) scientific discoveries lie at the interfaces<\/a> between traditional disciplines. This presupposes that scientists will collaborate with each other: just within biology it is impossible for any single person to grok every subtlety in any work of significance.<\/p>\n

\nIn the olden days, when Henry<\/a> was a lad, scientists used to collaborate by carving on stone tablets<\/del> sending pieces of paper through something rather quaintly called The Royal Mail<\/em>, or even (horrors!) by using telephones<\/em>. The lucky few got to meet each other at conferences, but such was the slowness and unreliability of the Post Office and the lamentable quality of telephone lines that conferences had to be organized five years (at least) in advance, by which time time half the participants had died of the Black Death and the other half just plain forgotten.<\/p>\n

\nAhem. What I’m trying to say is that the internet has caused what might rightly be termed a paradigm shift in scientific collaboration. This sounds like a truism, but we are all so used to it now that it is a useful exercise to try and recall (or imagine<\/em>, for the younger folk like Jenny<\/a> ) the Days Before Email.<\/p>\n

\nBefore email, before the WWW and Gopher and FTP and telnet, scientific collaboration was slower, perhaps more formal. The internet has changed all that. I can email, twitter, iChat, even keep a weblog. People can get in touch with me, and I with them, we can share data, retrieve papers, correct and criticize manuscripts at nine inches per nanosecond.<\/p>\n

\nWhat is worth remembering is that as email was becoming mainstream, many busy scientists dismissed it as trivial, or thought it worthless, or wondered how they would find the time. But they did, and now live by it (Diverting anecdote. My current boss often runs the lab by email — pointing out papers, telling us about NMR pulse programs, asking for status reports etc. Back in the day, I remember my DPhil supervisor remarking on the oddness of doing such a thing. No one thinks it unusual, now). Somehow they made time.<\/p>\n

\nToday, we are seeing a similar resistance to another nascent paradigm (Ed: can we have a nascent paradigm<\/em>?). It comes out of the internet, again, and is called Web 2.0. <\/p>\n

\nThe term Web 2.0<\/em> causes a great deal of confusion, and has probably started a few wars in less stable countries (such as Canberra<\/a> , for example. But no one noticed). There is a rather turgid and impenetrable non-definition<\/a> at Wikipedia. For now, I’m going to use Web 2.0<\/em> as convenient short-hand for “any kind of WWW-based meeting place”. <\/p>\n

\nThe distinguishing feature of Web 2.0 compared with the initial iteration (_Web 1.0_? WWW Lite<\/em>?) is that instead of being a means of disseminating information from one (potentially authoritative) source in a ‘one to many’ or ‘top-down’ manner (e.g., you lot reading this), the ‘users’ themselves communicate information in a ‘many-to-many’ fashion, a ‘level playing field’ if you like (e.g., you lot commenting on this). This has enormous potential, as well as the possibility of grievous abuse (wikipedia<\/a> , again).<\/p>\n

\nNature Network<\/em> is itself an example of Web 2.0<\/em>. There are lots of us here, all, I’d like to think, pretty reasonable in our chosen field, with a vast potential for collaboration. There are interesting posts, useful tips, and a hell of a lot of (highly enjoyable, admittedly) frivolity. <\/p>\n

\nBut when it comes down to it, the only question that really matters is <\/p>\n

\nIs it working?<\/strong>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nYou see, I’ve persuaded the Faculty and my Department to partially fund my trip to London in August<\/a> on the strength of <\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The potential for better communication between scientists and the world at large (by ‘blogging’)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n
    1. The potential for better collaboration between scientists themselves, especially between those way out in the Antipodes and those with resources and good connections (by leveraging ‘Web 2.0’)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      \n(It appears that my Dean and HoD believe<\/em> in this. And now I wonder how remarkable that is?)<\/p>\n

      \nNN<\/em> is not, of course, the only game in town. <\/p>\n

      \nResearchGATE<\/a> wants <\/p>\n

      \nto change the world of science by providing a global and powerful scientific web-based environment, in which scientists can interact, exchange knowledge and collaborate with researchers of different fields.<\/em>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      \nThey claim to be the ‘ first scientific network<\/a> ‘ (riiiight). <\/p>\n

      \nThere is SciLink<\/a> . There is the venerable Science Advisory Board<\/a> , which I joined ten years ago. Cameron<\/a> and<\/a> others<\/a> will tell you all about OpenWetWare<\/a> and<\/a> the like<\/a> .<\/p>\n

      \nPerhaps there are too many, just as there are too many Gordon Conferences? Which is going to become the Facebook, and which the Myspace? If I’ve already joined SciLink, why should I join NN<\/em>? Is there too much information out there, too much unreliable data?<\/p>\n

      \nWhat do the companies running and hosting these things (the ones that aren’t truly ‘open’, natch) get out of it? Marketing information \u2014 and if so, why aren’t we being paid for it (that, incidentally, was the original concept behind the SAB<\/a> , to give that marketing power back<\/em> to scientists).<\/p>\n

      \nI remembered, as I was planning this post, that there is a NN<\/em> Collaboration<\/a> forum (that incidentally took me a long time to track down). Rather tellingly, the latest comment is from Kathy Miller, who says<\/a><\/p>\n

      \nI’m a science writer putting together a story on the sociology of collaboration — specifically in the biomedical computing context. I’d love to know whether social networking sites like this one are really helping people build meaningful and lasting collaborations. I’m a doubter. Anyone have a good story to tell that fits this?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      \nHer month-old question remains unanswered. And there is a lot of hostility, or apathy at least, towards these endeavours. It seems that most PIs and higher just are not interested (my Dean and HoD notwithstanding), just as they thought email was a waste of time that they did not have. The media do not help: the Grauniard spun<\/a> NN<\/em> as a dating service (actually, that’s not such a bad idea. At least there might be money in that). Second Life<\/a> routinely gets trashed<\/a> (and its potential for scientific<\/a> networking is enormous<\/a> ).<\/p>\n

      \nWhy is there only one member in the Sydney Hub? How do we transfer the virtual to the actual: if, for example, I like what Jenny’s doing with her cells<\/a> , how can I make use of that in my<\/em> lab?<\/p>\n

      \nSo, people. Is it working? And if not, is it worth making it work? (Conferences are still the best bet for networking, but with oil running out and prices going through the stratosphere, can we afford to not<\/em> make all this work?).<\/p>\n

      \nIf we agree that it is worth it, how do we do<\/em> it?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      It is today perhaps taken for granted that the potential for the most exciting (dare I say ‘ striking ‘?) scientific discoveries lie at the interfaces between traditional disciplines. This presupposes that scientists will collaborate with each other: just within … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=135"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}