[OWW-SC] Fwd: The Scientific American "Science 2.0" story is finally online!

[Jason Kelly]

Hi SC,

OpenWetWare is featured in a Scientific American story this month.
They are experimenting with getting reader feedback on the web prior
to publishing the print edition -- with the intent of including some
of the feedback to improve the article before press.

So please share your experiences of doing open science on OWW here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-or-great-risk

See the author's (Mitch Waldrop) comments below.

Also, reminder that the SC meeting is tomorrow at Noon EST.  Chairs,
please post notes here:
http://openwetware.org/wiki/OpenWetWare:Steering_committee/Meeting_-_January_2008

Talk to you tomorrow, thanks,
jason

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: M. Mitchell Waldrop <mmwaldrop at gmail.com>
Date: Jan 9, 2008 3:38 PM
Subject: The Scientific American "Science 2.0" story is finally online!

Dear Everyone--

With my heartfelt thanks for all your help, and with my equally
heartfelt apologies for the length of time it has taken, I'm writing
to tell you that Scientific American has finally posted the Science
2.0 story on its Web site. The link is here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-or-great-risk
. As the introduction explains, this is actually an experiment in
getting reader feedback well before the print version appears. So I
hope you will all take advantage of that opportunity. And I hope you
will also publicize the link as widely as you can--on your blogs,
wikis and websites, among your fellow workshop and FOOcamp attendees,
wherever. Let's make the experiment a success!


For your convenience, here is the Web posting introduction:



Welcome to a Scientific American experiment in "networked journalism,"
in which readers—you—get to collaborate with the author to give a
story its final form.

The article, below, is a particularly apt candidate for such an
experiment: it's my feature story on "Science 2.0," which describes
how researchers are beginning to harness wikis, blogs and other Web
2.0 technologies as a potentially transformative way of doing science.
The draft article appears here, several months in advance of its print
publication, and we are inviting you to comment on it. Your inputs
will influence the article's content, reporting, perhaps even its
point of view.

So consider yourself invited. Please share your thoughts about the
promise and peril of Science 2.0.—just post your inputs in the Comment
section below. To help get you started, here are some questions to
mull over:
What do you think of the article itself? Are there errors?
Oversimplifications? Gaps?
What do you think of the notion of "Science 2.0?" Will Web 2.0 tools
really make science much more productive? Will wikis, blogs and the
like be transformative, or will they be just a minor convenience?
Science 2.0 is one aspect of a broader Open Science movement, which
also includes Open-Access scientific publishing and Open Data
practices. How do you think this bigger movement will evolve?
Looking at your own scientific field, how real is the suspicion and
mistrust mentioned in the article? How much do you and your colleagues
worry about getting "scooped"? Do you have first-hand knowledge of a
case in which that has actually happened?
When young scientists speak out on an open blog or wiki, do they risk
hurting their careers?
Is "open notebook" science always a good idea? Are there certain
aspects of a project that researchers should keep quite, at least
until the paper is published?

--M. Mitchell Waldrop



-- 
M. Mitchell Waldrop
2430 39th Street NW
Washington, DC  20007
202-337-9105 (W)
202-744-1792 (M)
mmwaldrop at gmail.com
http://mmwaldrop.com/Starclouds