RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, North Carolina — The hot ticket for science bloggers and online writers this year was a once-obscure North Carolina conference with only about 300 coveted seats available. It sold out in less than forty-five minutes after a Twitter registration frenzy attracted eager participants whose ardor would have put to shame even diehard football fans looking for Super Bowl tickets.
Now in its fifth year, the ScienceOnline conference—held here over the weekend in the sci-tech nexus of Raleigh-Durham’s Research Triangle area—seems to have come of age at the same time that an amazingly diverse and growing international science blogging community is stepping into the void left by the diminishing breed of traditional science journalists.
While the American mainstream media’s Darwinian struggle for survival has endangered specialty science coverage at many of the nation’s newspapers and news magazines, the enthusiastic participation here showed that science writing is alive and well on the Web. Today, an expanding cadre of fiercely independent, talented, and often very young science bloggers is coming to grips with a new dilemma: Just how do they fit into the changing landscape of science journalism, and to what degree are they willing to incorporate some old media standards into their new media work?
“We’re all science writers, each using similar tools and learning from each other,” said Bora Zivkovic, an unbelievably energetic forty-four-year-old émigré from Yugoslavia (now Serbia) who is one of the impresarios of the ScienceOnline meeting, as well as the burgeoning science blogging world. He claims to sleep, but is such a prolific blogger (at A Blog Around the Clock) and tweetaholic (@BoraZ has more than 34,100 tweets and counting) that many colleagues wonder how he finds the time.
Known in the past for harsh rhetoric about the mainstream media’s failures, Zivkovic—just call him Bora—has grown more temperate. That’s partly because he and other pioneering bloggers find themselves at the center of a new experiment in which a number of international media outlets, from the San Francisco-based Wired to the U.K.-based Guardian, are spicing up their websites by taking on outside blogs.
In October, Zivkovic himself donned a new digital hat as the editor Scientific American’s blog network, charged with creating a network of independent blogs to enhance the prestigious magazine’s already strong digital presence.
“I’m very happy to be at Scientific American. For 165 years it was cutting edge in the world of print. Now, it is cutting edge in the world of the web,” said Zivkovic, who now finds himself getting professional editing tips from some of the website’s seasoned pros on his monthly trips to New York from his Chapel Hill home.
The growth of several new and expanded science blogging networks was fueled in part by a dramatic exodus last summer from the popular ScienceBlogs.com community, following a decision by Seed Media Group (which owns the site) to host a nutrition blog paid for by Pepsi. Many community members considered it a blatant advertorial masquerading as an editorially independent blog. Dubbing the affair “Pepsigate,” a number of well-known bloggers schooled in traditional journalism left and many others followed. Some of the best landed at “mainstream” media outlets like Wired and the Guardian.
In addition, new blogging networks have sprung up at places like the Public Library of Science (PLoS), an open-access scientific journal, and new, independent communities like Scientopia have emerged. Discover, which helped start the trend in mainstream outlets’ acquisition of independent blogs back in 2009 (picking up Web favorites such as The Intersection, Not Exactly Rocket Science, and Bad Astronomy), has also seen a sharp rise in traffic.

You didn't mention (unless I glazed over it) one of the best features for those of us not actually there: the streaming video.
It was fairly well done (but some of the closeups were mildly embarassing... who wants to be in someone's face when there's a serious discussion going on?) ℞ for next year: much more video!
And yay! for NASW sponsorship. (I'm a member.)
#1 Posted by John Ludwigson, CJR on Wed 19 Jan 2011 at 05:12 PM
Oooops! I see I did glaze over the mention of video and the NASW. Sorry.
#2 Posted by John Ludwigson, CJR on Wed 19 Jan 2011 at 05:16 PM
I used to read in major science blogs (Jonah Lehrer, David Dobbs, and Carl Zimmer), and in science-related columns (such as Ben Zimmer, "On Language), more than I do now. The developments in science blogging are promising, but there is an ongoing issue with lack of depth.
If I were to choose between a science blog cycle for a week as opposed to reading "Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics," I would certainly pick the latter, even if the projects would not necessarily be totally exclusive.
I find the most interesting sentence in Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet's book to be:
"In fact, there are languages (e.g., Chinese) that are described as completely lacking tense as discussed here [for English]; in such languages temporal information is carried by adverblike modifiers and by what are called 'aspectual' morphemes" (281).
Baddeley's "Memory" (2009) suggests in its chapter on autobiographical memory that Asian cultures are different from those in the UK (or America) in that mothers do not tend to rehearse the past as much with their children. Which would mean that (if true) two major incentives (linguistic and cultural) exist with implications for teaching the systems of the past in English to those from an Asian background.
Since science blogs are often narrowly subject-based, nobody effectively collates texts in psychology, linguistics (and philosophy) so as to assess questions being raised across these disciplines. Naturally, book reviews decline to keep track of major new textbooks such as Baddeley 2009 and Schwartz 2011 on memory.
If we had analytical systems for such collation, we would probably have a genuine Scientific American Mind with a much better editor and far deeper articles. The failure of that magazine tells us that the "cognitive revolution" is still a bit chaotic and unenlightened.
I expected that science bloggers would develop meta-analysis in which they would write powerful projections of how Scientific American Mind could be reformed, but it has not happened. Another lapse is the inability to review such books as "101 Theory Drive" in terms of the implications for science policy. A sure index to the strength of science blogging is the measure of what slips through its fingers. Many science bloggers and The New York Times equally failed to see the value of "101 Theory Drive."
In many disciplines, such as philosophy and linguistics, blogs do not meet elementary standards of fairness to readers. Language Log is an example, where a blog running under the UPenn banner is run as a personal empire, with arbitrary deletion of comment and an erratic "research" agenda.
It should be possible for science bloggers (and Ivy League universities, for example) to set standards for treatment of readers. The Harvard Crimson has for years had very good practices for reader comment. The TLS blogs are well-designed with robust opportunities for comment. (The UK Guardian would be good if it were not for the volume of unorganized participation.) Technically, science blogs (mostly) do not meet the standards of TLS, Crimson, and New York Times (despite its bizarre editorial practices) when it comes to handling reader comment. Science blog design is often just too awkward.
I am interested in reader rights because I have done enough posting at different types of blogs to have learned the habits of blog hosts. Many are honest. Some (Science is a good negative example) will post and later delete your comment to favor friends. Some hosts really struggle with basic comprehension (at Paper Cuts at The New York Times, for example).
There is much potential in Dobbs/Lehrer/Zimmer/Zimmer in terms of science blogs, but we are not seeing the maturity of science blogs as well-organized systems. Orienting in a penetrating way to information, to its past, and projecting into the future. The universe is expanding rapidly, but our information sys
#3 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Tue 25 Jan 2011 at 01:02 PM
lol, I wanted in on that conference. It's great that there's so much interest.
Dave
Interview Questions and Answers
#4 Posted by Dave, CJR on Fri 19 Aug 2011 at 04:17 PM