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 and communicators.
The Nature Network week column is archived here.
“The next time you are reviewing a paper and forcing yourself to re-read the lifeless prose for the umpteenth time, please don’t be tempted to fast-forward through the Materials and Methods. Give them all the attention they deserve. And then some. And then some more.” So writes Stephen Curry, telling a long tale of frustration at lack of sufficient detail in a published paper and the after-effects, in a post with the ironic title “I’m reviewing the situation”.
As reported in a previous column, Martin Fenner recently created a survey to ask scientists what they think about author identifiers (broadly, a unique web address or other identifier that would allow one to be uniquely associated with one’s work rather than the present confusion that arises with duplicate names and so on). Martin has now complied the results, which are fascinating in themselves — and which can be viewed and discussed at Martin’s Nature Network blog. Martin has had a busy week, as he continues his series of interviews by putting Richard Grant under the spotlight. Richard has recently begun working for the literature-filtering service Faculty of 1000 (F1000), and takes the opportunity to tell Nature Network readers about the company and its future plans.
Moving from identifiers to role models, Ruth Wilson asks whether we run the risk of role models being too elite and high-powered to be truly inspirational? Ruth asks Nature Network users about their role models (if any) and whether a bad role model can be a good thing. Take a look at the ensuing discussion.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is holding a public consultation on the ethical issues raised by online healthcare, telemedicine and commercial medical profiling technologies such as DNA testing and body imaging, writes Gillian Pepper. The council would like to hear your views, and those of others, by 21 July. Details at Gillian’s post, including links to some newspaper coverage of the exercise.
Publish an article with the title “End the university as we know it”, as the New York Times did the other day, and you can guarantee a response. Nature Network users provided some stimulating thoughts on the piece (by a member of a department of religion, as it happens) — particularly Craig Rowell, who likes the proposed restructuring of departments, and Pamela Ronald, who approves of increased collaboration if not of abolishing tenure.
Whether scientists should speak out in public about their work and values is debated by Piero Visconti in the Science in Italy forum. Piero believes that scientists should have a say in the decision-making processes for which they have expertise, as scientific advice can prevent some of the negative consequences of leaving decisions to policy-makers who aren’t expert or who have other interests. Visit Nature Network Italy to contribute your thoughts.
Further science-related blog reading and online discussion can be enjoyed at: