I’ve just submitted a proposal for three lectures about different aspect of Science 2.0. Target audience are PhD-students. Below you can find a brief overview. Probably the details will change a bit when I start to prepare the lectures (for example I’m aware that Etherpad is on its way out), but nevertheless you are very welcome to comment and suggest different approach.
Science 2.0 – practical aspects of the internet revolution
Part 1 – communication, collaboration, visibility
New communications channels (blogs, microblogs, aggregators, virtual conferences ans poster sessions) and examples of successful applying in science. New roles of blogs, Research Blogging initiative. Wikis, Etherpad and Google Documents/Wave – platforms for document co-writing. Collaboration for programmers, Git. Visibility and recognition in the internets: StackOverflow and ResearcherID.
Part 2 – practical open science
Spectrum of openness in science. Community annotation of genes/proteins/structures and why these aren’t so successful. Crowdsourcing and citizen-science. Overview of open data repositories, focusing on open data coming from pharma industry. Mechanisms of Open Access and Open Notebook Science. Current discussions on intellectual property – what’s not protected and what’s not licensable?
Part 3 – searching for information and literature management
Information overflow – myth or fact? Searching for information – differences between PubMed and Google Scholar. Semantic analysis of abstracts based on GoPubMed and NovoSeek. Targeted text-mining tools. Literature management: online (Connotea, CiteULike) and desktop (Zotero, Mendeley) approaches. Alternatives for EndNote. Automated or not – literature recommendations.
(Do not) Beat ideas half to death
This is short post/note to self – to see if the way I think about science today will change in couple of years. Its enigmatic title comes from Stu Jenks, one of my favourite photographers. He wrote in the introduction to his works:
If we substitute “artists” with “scientists” it still sounds true. This is efficient (in modern terms of scientific productivity) way of doing research, but probably not always the best one. While I know that many breakthrough discoveries in science were results of years of hard work, not all of them required fifteen years to establish a procedure only. So, the question is if rapid switching between fields (every few years or so) is a good idea? It probably depends. Ask me in a few years how it works in my case.
Posted by Pawel Szczesny on February 17, 2009 in Comments
Tags: ART, Creativity, Photography, Productivity, Research, science