Taking my cue from Martin’s excellent suggestion, and following Henry, Steffi, Eva and Maxine, here’s my tuppence-worth:
1. What is your blog about?
Usually about 500 words… on the subject of the underbelly of science. The guts and bolts, so-to-speak.
2. What will you never write about?
Real-time experimental results – my lab-books are closed until peer review. Sorry Cameron.
3. Have you ever considered leaving science?
Yes.
4. What would you do instead?
There was a time at the end of my PhD when I thought I wanted to be a hospital manager and joined the NHS for 10 months. It was not a marriage made in heaven. Lately I’ve been thinking of applying for jobs in Hollywood…
5. What do you think will science blogging be like in 5 years?
No idea. No, really – not a clue.
6. What is the most extraordinary thing that happened to you because of blogging?
Well, it’s a bit early to say since I’ve only been in this game for a couple of months. I have certainly enjoyed getting to know people, some of whom I’ve even met in first life! And it’s great to have an outlet for writing about science that some people actually seem to read. And while I enjoy the scientific community round here, I would like to see NN expanding its audience outwardly.
Oh, and my kids think I’m a little bit ‘cool’ to be blogging!
7. Did you write a blog post or comment you later regretted?
Not apart from this one.
8. When did you first learn about science blogging?
Relatively recently – probably within the last 2 or 3 years.
9. What do your colleagues at work say about your blogging?
I’m still waiting for most of them to find out. I haven’t advertised it widely where I work and no-one who knows about it has yet passed comment.
10. Extra credit: are you able to write an entry to your blog that takes the form of a poem about your research?
Well, I think I started that – surely my credit’s good? In any case, my muse is all wrung out this week!
You already regret this post? I hope not. Your answer to #9 seems to be a common theme. Do you think it is easier or more difficult for faculty to talk about their blogging? I think that science blogging might be easier to explain if you are already an established scientist.
Regarding #9, I think the news will slowly leak out. I hope to be able to help promote this type of activity—despite my initial reticence about advertising my own efforts—where I work.
But yes, the regrets and reticence reflect the background feeling that I am still combatting about blogging being as somewhat unusual activity for a scientist who takes himself seriously…!
That’s not to decry the activity, but there is a flippant side to it that I’m not wholly at ease with. Which is very odd since I’m a very flippant being—as will have been evident! But I have to keep biting my tongue and telling myself to stick to the serious stuff – not wholly successfully.
I think your blog (and Martin’s) is a great role model for science blogging, Stephen. They make excellent answers to the sceptical, and good examples/encouragement for the people who haven’t started yet. I am not just saying this to be sychophantic (though there may be an element!) – I think that blogs like yours and Martin’s are fantastic ways to show people the interest, fun, problems etc of doing science – by an enthusiast. (Though I appreciate Martin’s blog is more about science communication, whereas yours is more about the doing of science). I wish more scientists had blogs like this one – I bet this would do more than anything to encourage young people to study science at university and thereafter. Wouldn’t it be nice if one lesson of the science curriculum in schools could be dedicated to blogging – the students could read a selection of science blogs and write comments on some of the posts?
You definitely get the credit for the poem, so far as I’m concerned.
I think you have identified one of the downsides of blogging – or at least, challenges. You mention flippancy but there are also other aspects of “lack of impulse control” on blogs – I really hate reading some posts and comments, even on NN which in general is pretty on-topic – I hate reading about hatred, bigotry, prejudice, bullying, “chiming in”, personal attackes, etc. They don’t happen that much on NN thankfully, but sometimes I’ve felt quite upset. I am possibly a more sensitive soul than many, but I think “science blogging” has to pull its socks up a bit if it really is going to catch on universally – which I think it could do as it is such a powerful medium. Sometimes the sponteneity of blogging is its own worst enemy, with some awful rants and ignorance elsewhere (not on NN) – sometimes it reflects its very charm.
Gee, thanks Maxine. I guess I won’t chuck it in just yet! Actually, I’m doing quite well living with my reservations and am having some fun with blogging. These days I hardly twitch at all when I write that word…
Your points about the downsides are well made but I think the vast majority of people who contribute here can be proud of the standards that are being set – in terms of writing and behaviour.