Science 2.0 – introduction and perspectives for Poland « Freelancing science - The Diigo Meta page

• 20 May 09
  

  Mike Chelen

  science2.0 elearning eresearch

  • transcript of Science 2.0 based on a presentation I gave on conference on open science organized in Warsaw earlier this month
  • prepared for mixed audience and focused on perspectives for Poland
  • new forms of communication between scientists
  • research become meaningful only after confronting results with the scientific community
  • peer-reviewed publication is the best communication channel we had so far
  • new communication channels complement peer-reviewed publication
  • two important attributes in which they differ from traditional models: openness and communication time
  • increased openness and shorter communication time happens already in publishing industry (via Open Access movement and experiments with alternative/shorter ways of peer-review)
  • say few words about experiments that go little or quite a lot beyond publication
  • My Experiment as an example of an important step towards openness
  • least radical idea you can find in modern Science 2.0 world
  • virtual research environment
  • focus is put on sharing scientific workflows
  • use case
  • diagram of the “methods” sections from experimental (including bioinformatics analyses) publications
  • make it easier for others to understand what we did
  • can open towards other scientists we can also open towards non-experts
  • people from all over the world compete in improving structural models of proteins
  • helps in improving protein structure prediction software and in understanding protein folding
  • combine teaching and data annotation
  • metagenome sequences in first case and chemistry spectra in the second
  • interactive visualizations of chemical structures, genomes, proteins or multidimensional data
  • communicate some difficult concepts faster
  • new approaches in conference reporting
  • report in real time from the conference
  • followed by a number of people, including even the ones that were already on the conference
  • “open notebook science” which means conducting research using publicly available, immediately updated laboratory notebook
  • The reason I did a model for Cameron’s grant was that I subscribed to his feed before
  • I didn’t subscribe to Cameron because I knew his professional profile
  • I read his blog, I commented on it and he commented on mine, etc.
  • participation in online communities
  • important part of Science 2.0 is the fact that it has human face
  • PhDs about the same time
  • first was from a major Polish institute, the second from a major European one
  • what a head of a lab both would apply to will see
  • gap we must fill, this is between current research and lectures we give today
  • access to real-time scientific conversation
  • follow current research and decide what is important to learn
  • synthetic biology
  • not all universities in world have synthetic biology courses
  • didn’t stop these students, and they plan to participate in IGEM again
  • community of life scientists
  • not only scientists – there are librarians, science communicators, editors from scientific journals, people working in biotech industry
  • even people without direct connection to science
  • diverse skills and background
  • online conference
  • interact with them and to learn from them

  45 more annotations...

• 18 May 09
  

  Bill Hooker

  oaos.talks

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.