Kristofferson@BIONET-20.BIO.NET (David Kristofferson) (05/16/89)
Simon et al., Getting a discussion going on a scientific newsgroup in biology still seems to be something of a novel art form and I think that people are still groping here. Nonetheless I am very encouraged by the spirit that is being shown in the POPULATION-BIOLOGY group which is the first one created on BIOSCI as a result of a vote of the community. I am not a population biologist, so I can't contribute topics, but I do have a simple question to ask. I used to work in the cytoskeleton field, and there were always papers coming out with which we disagreed (hopefully not just because we were a disagreeable lot 8-)!!). At meetings we would often engage in discussions to obtain more details of experimental techniques which might have been inadequately explained, etc., so as to evaluate better the interpretations of results. I can understand people's reluctance to give away their "hot ideas," but there always still seemed to be enough to talk about at meetings without giving everything away. Aren't there similar concerns in population biology (or in other scientific interest groups on BIOSCI)? Doesn't anyone out there have any questions concerning published research? When approaching an electronic newsgroup, just pretend that you actually at a professional meeting of your colleagues. If just a few people so "pretend," pretty soon the discussion will start rolling along, more people will join in, and, in fact, there will no longer be a need for pretense as you will have formed your own meeting on an international scale. All of this is possible without ever having left your lab! The technique has worked in other fields. For example, I *first* heard of the "cold fusion" controversy on sci.chem, a newly formed USENET group, before it hit the national press. Later, news accounts related how the "modern miracle" of FAX machines was being used to pass preprints around the world. My reaction to that was "What a quaint way of disseminating information, one telephone call and lots of paper per recipient!" [FAX still has the important advantage of being able to handle graphics (which are not impossible in e-mail systems), but FAX can not come close to comparing to e-mail in speed and cost of distribution. If the manuscript contains computer-readable data FAX is also at a disadvantage.] The bottom line is that these new forms of communication are slowly pervading the scientific community. If chemists and other groups can use them, there is no reason why biologists can't get on the ball too. Hope this results in something other than passive reading of this message! Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson BIONET Resource Manager kristofferson@bionet-20.bio.net -------
ladasky@codon3.berkeley.edu (John Ladasky;1021 Solano No. 2;528-8666) (05/18/89)
In article <12494445366.14.KRISTOFFERSON@BIONET-20.BIO.NET> Kristofferson@BIONET-20.BIO.NET (David Kristofferson) writes: > Getting a discussion going on a scientific newsgroup in >biology still seems to be something of a novel art form and I think >that people are still groping here. Nonetheless I am very encouraged >by the spirit that is being shown in the POPULATION-BIOLOGY group >which is the first one created on BIOSCI as a result of a vote of the >community. I'm only a lowly undergraduate, so I'm sure that my head is still cluttered with silly, idealistic visions of scientific researchers cooper- ating as much as possible in order to make a better world 8^). The problem with discussing research is not isolated to the biology newsgroups. There is secrecy to be found wherever there is credit to be taken. > The technique has worked in other fields. For example, I >*first* heard of the "cold fusion" controversy on sci.chem, a newly >formed USENET group, before it hit the national press. Later, news >accounts related how the "modern miracle" of FAX machines was being >used to pass preprints around the world. My reaction to that was The results of the research were controversial, and the informa- tion available to other researchers was apparently quite sparse. The use of newsgroups and FAX transmissions has actually been criticized for failing to provide enough information to accurately reproduce the experiment in the way that a journal article would allow. Hopefully, the presence of near-instantaneous communication facilities will not tempt us to jump the gun with our conclusions or omit details. Of course, newsgroups are a perfect forum for speculation. There's no sense in even starting a series of experiments that you could not justify to your scien- tific peers. The trick is to tell your colleagues enough about what you're doing to get their input, without giving away all your secrets... > kristofferson@bionet-20.bio.net T CROSS POLICE LINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE LINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE LINE DO NOT CR _______________________________________________________________________________ "Do unto others as you would like - John J. Ladasky ("ii") to do unto them. " Richard Bach (ladasky@enzyme.berkeley.edu)
Kristofferson@BIONET-20.BIO.NET (David Kristofferson) (05/18/89)
>> Getting a discussion going on a scientific newsgroup in >> biology still seems to be something of a novel art form and I think >> that people are still groping here. Nonetheless I am very encouraged . . . > I'm only a lowly undergraduate, so I'm sure that my head is still > cluttered with silly, idealistic visions of scientific researchers cooper- > ating as much as possible in order to make a better world 8^). The problem > with discussing research is not isolated to the biology newsgroups. There > is secrecy to be found wherever there is credit to be taken. (Ah ha! A challenge!) Quite True! I could tell enough stories about the absolutely seamy side of science that would make your head spin. Nonetheless my statements were not made in ignorance of these facts. My main point was that people DO TALK AT MEETINGS and that these discussions are not all conducted in one-on-one secrecy. A large amount of discussion about the cold fusion research went on on sci.chem and I am sure that the monetary stakes involved there made the issue more prone to secrecy than most. As you noted, there is an art to saying enough without saying too much. One also can ask questions about *published* research, e.g., clarification of methods used, without spilling any beans. I guess that I am a glutton for punishment, being through some scarring fights already, but I still do believe that scientists can "cooperate" together to make a better world if one uses a slightly different definition of "cooperate." To a large extent Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" is at work in the progress of science. However, research done in total isolation does not stand a high chance of success. Scientists need to disseminate research results and get cross-fertilization of ideas from their colleagues in order to stimulate their own work. In this sense they do "cooperate." . . . > The use > of newsgroups and FAX transmissions has actually been criticized for failing > to provide enough information to accurately reproduce the experiment in the > way that a journal article would allow. > Hopefully, the presence of near-instantaneous communication facilities > will not tempt us to jump the gun with our conclusions or omit details. Of > course, newsgroups are a perfect forum for speculation. There's no sense in > even starting a series of experiments that you could not justify to your scien- > tific peers. The trick is to tell your colleagues enough about what you're > doing to get their input, without giving away all your secrets... Right! And the very fact that newsgroups are not peer-reviewed now (but they can be ... access to moderated groups need not be completely open) reassures me on these points. Very few people as you noted above are going to spill their hard earned results in a forum which they can't put on their CV's. In summary, the psychological forces are in place to make the discussion mechanism useful yet self-limiting where needed. I still view the main problem in biological newsgroups as being the fact that many of the "big names" in biology don't use and, quite often, highly dislike computers. This too shall pass ... Eventually the current grad students and postdocs who are using the computers will become the establishment (assuming there are still jobs and money for research left). (Boy, would I like these statements to raise some professor's ire! 8-). Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson BIONET Resource Manager kristofferson@net.bio.net -------
elliston@rob.UUCP ( Keith Elliston) (05/18/89)
In article <24528@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, ladasky@codon3.berkeley.edu (John Ladasky;1021 Solano No. 2;528-8666) writes: > In article <12494445366.14.KRISTOFFERSON@BIONET-20.BIO.NET> Kristofferson@BIONET-20.BIO.NET (David Kristofferson) writes: > I'm only a lowly undergraduate, so I'm sure that my head is still We all started out this way.... > cluttered with silly, idealistic visions of scientific researchers cooper- > ating as much as possible in order to make a better world 8^). The problem > with discussing research is not isolated to the biology newsgroups. There > is secrecy to be found wherever there is credit to be taken. Unfortunately you will find that fewer and fewer researchers are interested in sharing their data, for just the reasons you mention.... credit. I wish that the days of full coooperation were still upon us. > > The results of the research were controversial, and the informa- > tion available to other researchers was apparently quite sparse. The use > of newsgroups and FAX transmissions has actually been criticized for failing > to provide enough information to accurately reproduce the experiment in the > way that a journal article would allow. > > Hopefully, the presence of near-instantaneous communication facilities > will not tempt us to jump the gun with our conclusions or omit details. Of > course, newsgroups are a perfect forum for speculation. There's no sense in > even starting a series of experiments that you could not justify to your scien- > tific peers. The trick is to tell your colleagues enough about what you're > doing to get their input, without giving away all your secrets... I have been thinking about the concept of an electronic journal for some time. Something that could easily be distributed (like e-mail), but that would be complete, like a journal article. I think that I have a few good ideas, and am in the process of getting them going. My question is this.... do you think that something like this would catch on, or would it just not be used, mcuh like much of the network facilities we now have. > "Do unto others as you would like - John J. Ladasky ("ii") > to do unto them. " Richard Bach (ladasky@enzyme.berkeley.edu) -Keith =============================================================================== Keith O. Elliston | Usenet: uunet!rob!elliston Senior Information Scientist | Arpanet: rob!elliston@uunet.uu.net Merck Sharp & Dohme Res. Lab. | Bitnet: elliston%rob.uucp@psuvax1 Rahway, NJ 07065 U.S.A. | -or- elliston@biovax =============================================================================== Disclaimer: I can have no OFFICIAL comments about anything........ ===============================================================================
Kristofferson@BIONET-20.BIO.NET (David Kristofferson) (05/19/89)
>I have been thinking about the concept of an electronic journal for some time. >Something that could easily be distributed (like e-mail), but that would be >complete, like a journal article. I think that I have a few good ideas, and >am in the process of getting them going. My question is this.... do you think >that something like this would catch on, or would it just not be used, mcuh >like much of the network facilities we now have. Keith, My hope is that longer term this will indeed happen, particularly when more people have high speed network connections and the ability to pass graphics back and forth. It is not science fiction at all to envision journals being distributed in electronic form and being read on high resolution graphics terminals. I would wager that we will easily see this in our lifetime. I have tried on several occasions to get well known scientists to moderate the current newsgroups but with only limited success. However use of the facilities has been almost doubling for each of the last few years, so there is still reason for optimism. Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson BIONET Resource Manager kristofferson@bionet-20.bio.net -------