This weekly Nautilus column highlights some of the online discussion at Nature Network in the preceding week that is of relevance to scientists as authors. The Nature Network week column is archived here.
In the science writers’ group, Angela Saini asks what science stories would be great for television, given that her non-scientist friends frequently tell her that “there is not enough science on TV”. Among the responses so far are suggestions about heirloom tomatoes, better science for children, fun science and a magazine show. Matt Brown , who provides a weekly round-up of UK science TV on the network, comments that his favourite science programme on TV is “the recent BBC4 documentary about the lead singer of Eels discovering his father’s pioneering work on parallel universe theory. In other words, rock star learns extreme physics.” Read on, and add your suggestions, at the Network forum.
At the NatureJobs careers forum, Paul Smaglik provides advice on roles in clinical trial programmes and starting a research career.
At the good paper journal club, Linda Cooper asks why so many scientific articles are difficult to read, and Heather Etchevers encourages more suggestions of well-written papers for dissection. Continuing the theme, Richard Grant at his blog The Scientist asks why most scientific papers are so boring. There is a very nice blog post by Mico Tatalovic, providing a student’s perspective on students’ science-writing skills — including a round-up of undergraduate science journals.
Anna Kushnir initiates what has turned out to be a very informative debate about PubMed searches, at her blog Lab Life. There are plenty of tips and links in the long comment thread. You can also read an article on Partial Immortalization blog, “”https://pimm.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/how-to-filter-and-read-pubmed-articles-through-rss-feeds/“>How to filter and read PubMed articles through RSS feeds”, complete with screen shots, by Attila Csordas.
Jose Manuel Otero has started a Nature Network blog to discuss the difference and similarities between academic and industrial research. He is setting out to destroy some common myths. One such is that industrial research environments are not focused on problem understanding, but instead exclusively concerned with project milestones and product delivery, and therefore, will punish any type of mechanism-based efforts towards enhanced and deeper understanding. Wrong! Unsurprisingly, this blog is attacting stimulating discussion, which doubtless will continue.
John Willbanks writes about creative works, copyrights and publishing, providing some further thoughts after his talk at MIT on the question of how to extricate the “non-creative facts” from the creative, copyrighted work.
Perhaps the most intense and long comment thread for the week is Jennifer Rohn’s post and discussion on Mind the Gap, “”https://network.nature.com/blogs/user/UE19877E8/2008/03/26/in-which-i-utterly-fail-to-conceptualize">In which I utterly fail to conceptualize". Initially on the use of Excel spreadsheets to analyse genome-wide screens, the discussion becomes a full-blown debate on the contributions of bioinformaticans and “wet” (laboratory) biologists. And perhaps the most significant Nature Network group that started this week is called Collaboration: bringing Nature Network members together, set up by Bob O’Hara in direct response to this discussion. Can Nature Network create collaborations between its members? How can NN facilitate this process? Here you can discuss these details, and look for other people who are interested in working on the same topics as you are. I encourage you to sign up.