An editor at Nature discusses the internet and the ethics of science communication (PDF). The paper doesn't turn out to be much of a discussion of science communication on the web - the piece ends up being more of a dig at open-access publishing advocates. On top of that, the discussion of science on the internet is rather banal, making a few fairly obvious points without offering any new solutions. I'm sympathetic to the author's defense of peer-review. When it comes to formal scientific publication, peer-review is the way to go - it makes researchers put down their ideas and results into a concrete, rigorous form. When you publish formally, your analysis and experiments stop becoming a moving target, and other scientists in your field can then look more closely at what argument you're making and at the evidence you have to support that argument. But peer-review isn't some temple of scientific purity. A lot of garbage gets published, and peer-review doesn't always mean your 'quality-stamped' paper is worth the acid-free, archival quality paper it's printed on. In fact, I don't think peer-review should be used by the public as an indicator of what is reliable science. Peer-review should be a minimum qualification (in other words, don't even bother reading a science press release unless there is a peer-reviewed study to back it up), but after that minimal hurdle has been met, the real skepticism has to kick in. And this is where the internet can excel. Although bloggers work without the "safety net" of an editor, I'm not sure an editor is such a good thing in this medium (except when it comes to the typos and mangled sentences that seem to be the inevitable by-product quick commentary - or at least my quick commentary). Informal communication is just as essential to science as formal publication. Heisenberg put it this way: "Science rests on experiments, but science is rooted in conversations." What blogging has done is bring some of the conversations of scientists out into the open. There are the inevitable cranks, but cranks have always been remarkably good at exploiting the latest innovations in communications to spread their obsessions, and they've never worried about waiting for an editor's approval. With the wide availability of blogs written by scientists and competent science journalists, the science-reading public can not only listen in, but also engage the scientists involved. The result should be a chance for the public to get both better understanding of how science works and a sense of the uncertainty involved in pushing the frontiers of knowledge. So how do you know which bloggers to trust? If you're asking that question in the first place, then you're making a good start, since the question is a sign that you're interested in getting a handle on what scientists are doing, as opposed to looking for experts to validate your pet theories. (And if you are looking to merely validate pet theories, there is no scientific authority big enough to stop you from indulging in your worst instincts.) Like the rest of life (including peer-reviewed publishing), there is no 'quality assured' stamp that can tell you what to believe without revving up your critical thinking faculties. Bloggers have to work to build a reputation and earn your trust. A hard-earned reputation is probably the best quality assured stamp we have.