(Untitled)

[redbeard]

For those who don't read ecologydiscuss or _scientists_, some things have come up recently that have made me pause, thing, and then post this lil' manifesto about ecology and web 2.0, as it were. Actually, I originally posted it in response to this entry on the ESA blog which is brand spankin' new (end hence unused), but they don't seem to have posted it there (I think

Comments

[bwilder]

As a quick note, I will say that it seems really hard to get people to share information. I imagine in the sciences, no one would want to release their info before it was peer-reviewed and published, because of the attendant career making and breaking. Is that wrong?

[redbeard]

Indeed, it is. But I think more than anything it is because ego is wrong. Part of my point is that there is no substitute for the peer review process in the end, but that the sharing of ideas, stripping away of ego, could well speed up the pace of research, and lead to more interesting and innovative ideas burbling to the surface more rapidly.

[bwilder]

I just wonder how many are interested in speeding up the pace of research if it means losing control of data, for methodological reasons as well as reasons.

It's certainly something I'd be interested in seeing happen, I just don't know if academia is ready. Factor in private research (drug companies, say) and you know that shit ain't gonna happen.

My guess is that this sort of sharing won't happen unless globalization forces countries to be competitive with one another in a direct, "sink or swim" sort of way. That seems like the sort of thing that could pave the way for a nationalization of information.

[redbeard]

For biochem, pharma, genetics, and all of the hot-we-can-make-buttloads-of-money-on-this disciplines, you're totally right. It ain't gonna happen, and I'm not convinced it should (well, it should, but I'm realistic). But for Ecology? Who's ever going to make $$ there? And given the accelerating pace of environmental problems, and that opening up our scientific process will enable non-scientists to get greater insight into the state-of-the-art of ecological knowledge, I think it is in many ways the perfect discipline to adopt this approach.

The flip side of that is I know many ecologists with big egos who are very protective of their ideas and what's going on in their lab. Honestly, I've seen it lead to more problems than any real benefit, particularly in this field. I just don't see any reason for it, really.

And, if it's starts in, say, ecology, and benefits the discipline, it would be nice to be a model for other disciplines as well - to start the ball rolling, as it were, for what should be happening everywhere (imho).

[froggoddess]

Ooh ooh ohh! I'm a non-scientist! And I have thoughts! Thoughts related to this!

But I should be working now. Remind me when I see you in a few weeks --

a.

[hissilliness]

I'm gettting a "no such entry" error on that lil' manifesto. And I like your manifestoes.

[redbeard]

No, it's not THAT kind of manifesto. But, now it has been posted "oficially" on the ESA Blog.