Science 2.0…..feasible any time soon?

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!

New Facebook privacy options…is too much, too less?

Alright, here it is! I’ve always been one of those meek observers of the web2.0 scenario, giving in to inertia to write anything myself. But this one was a bummer!

I searched for my name on google yesterday, hoping to see a latest publication and my lab’s website pop-up. But what I found on the first page itself was a couple of facebook friends’ names, because they have me on the list!Clicking on the link of my friend’s name took me to the main page of facebook, where it even showed my pic and some other people’s pics, who happen to be on my friend’s list.Now this was unexpected, because I thought my profile and my facebook contacts are only visible to my friends on facebook. Digging into the gazillion privacy options of facebook, i finally found and option to choose if my profile should be indexed by search engines. What more, the option was activated by default!

Now I agree it would be a good marketing tactic - you search for your friend’s name, the facebook result shows up, and you also see some common friends - well, anyone would be tempted to signup. But all this without explicit knowledge of registered users!Isn’t that unethical?Or am I just over reacting?I f i want my profile to show up on google, i’d rather make it public.

Last week there was a lot of coverage about the new facebook privacy features. I’m not really sure if this feature is new as well, because i didn’t come across any blog which mentioned this. But the thing is, why can’t facebook be more open to the users and make such things more prominent (think linkedin, which has a clear distinction between a public and linkedin profile.).

I found this video explaining the new privacy settings on another blog (http://tinyurl.com/2c9h8v), but the question is, why can’t facebook add such videos to their website?I’d like to know your thoughts about this issue, because I don’t really think its that trivial an issue. And for Mr Z, maybe its time to go back to Harvard and take Ethics 101!