Cruising in the ‘bit’ space…

I recently came across the article by Dr Ben Shneiderman in Science Magazine. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5868/1349

In a nutshell, science 2.0 refers to the clever use of web2.0 technologies (blogs, wikis, SNs etc.) by clever people (scientists, researchers et al.).

Quoting Dr Shneiderman,

“The guiding strategies of Science 1.0 are still needed for Science 2.0: hypothesis testing, predictive models, and the need for validity, replicability, and generalizability. However, the Science 2.0 challenges cannot be studied adequately in laboratory conditions because controlled experiments do not capture the rich context of Web 2.0 collaboration, where the interaction among variables undermines the validity of reductionist methods.”

Now the question arises, in a system which has its roots on peer reviewed publications, to what extent do these collaborative web 2.0 technologies fit in? I’m talking not in terms of academic benefits to the communities, but in terms of the resistance such efforts might face from the currently established systems, including the publication industry.

Take an example. A 20 something grad student spends five years in the prime of his life working 60 hrs a week in the lab, with dreams of changing the world for good. Five years hence, he gets a postdoc, and then strives to be a professor in an A Grade school. He starts on a tenure, which would end if he doesn’t get enough grants from funding sources, no matter what his academic caliber is. So now the game begins. Either publish like hell and try to impress the funding sources, and hence compromise with your original research ideas or face the music and loose your job and dignity, when you are in your early thirties, have a family and kids.No wonder there are a zillion number of journals which have cropped up in recent years, knowing that if there is anything the current system promotes, its the publication industry!

Many fields of science have become so hypothesis driven, that they do not leave a room for exploratory research – studies fail and experiments do go wrong, but if its not documented , a large amount of precious information is lost!

Now here is where the web2.0 tools fit in. Researchers document there findings, even the minutest details of procedures of their experiments on wikis, ofcourse moderated by some responsible people. There is a log of what works and what not. Right now, the only platform where scientists interact with other people is through conferences – people from various fields, with different levels of knowledege and different specialities, assemble for a couple of days in some exotic location, present their thoughts in 10 minutes, attend a session or two and then, like a good guest, promote the tourism industry of the place.

Think about the possibility of Social networks in such a setting. Not that papers won’t be published altogether, but instead of just three reviewers, there would be comments from experts from related fields and students alike.There would be a new level of knowledge that can be transmitted, with the same set of information.

But then, there are businesses interests….and the day a big fish finds a way to make money from this setup….things would change…..positively!