I recently saw an article that surprised me, and it isn't often I am surprised by anything that shows up on the Internet. It was written by Adrienne J. Burke at the New York Academy of Sciences and titled "Conversations with seven Science 2.0 pioneers" but that isn't what surprised me either; Science 2.0 gets used all of the time and it is a registered trademark (of yours truly) but I only bothered to trademark it when people started trying to use it to make money. The NYAS article is free so they aren't going to get a cease-and-desist or anything like that.
But Burke makes a crucial error that strikes right at the heart of the confluence of science and culture; namely that even the NYAS does not not know what Science 2.0 is, other than through a revenue framework.
Here are the 7 people interviewed as Science 2.0 pioneers:
Harold Varmus, co-founder of Public Library of Science
Timo Hannay, Publishing Director, Nature Publishing Group
Stewart Wills, Editorial Director, Web&New Media, Science Magazine
Adam Bly, founder of Seed Magazine (owner of Scienceblogs.com and Researchblogging.org)
James Boyle, founding member of Creative Commons
Anurag Acharya, Founding Engineer, Google Scholar
John Wilbanks, Executive Director, Science Commons and Scienceblogs.com writer
The first three are peer-reviewed journals so very much Science 1.0 - and two of them charge readers.
Hint: this is not Science 2.0 but it is part of the reason I trademarked it.
Seed is a magazine so Science Communication 1.0, though I would consider Scienceblogs.com a Science 2.0 idea since it is bypassing traditional gate keeping and bridging the gaps between science and the public, just like we are.
Creative Commons did not issue forth as part of Science 2.0, it came before and is a way to make publishing a little easier without giving away copyright. So Boyle's inclusion is a little puzzling.
Google Scholar is a search feature owned by a multi-billion dollar juggernaut, so definitely not Science 2.0.
Science Commons is basically creative commons, except for data, and data is the foundation of science - this is the only one where the author gets it right about it being Science 2.0. Though I created the term years earlier, Wilbanks has at least been at this since 2006 (so not a bandwagon newcomer) and a Creative Commons effort for data can be considered 'pioneering'.
If you read Burke's article you got a question and answer with seven people but no clear idea what they all had in common or why Burke considers most of it Science 2.0 at all. Is Science 2.0 simply open access? Errrrr, no, this site is Science 2.0 and it is not open access yet the questions for Varmus relate only to open access and the questions for Bly relate to how his company wants to change the nature of Impact Factors. Wills mentions that Science has been on the Web since 1996 so I am not sure he even knew what article he was in. If open access is not Science 2.0, Twitter is certainly not.
These are 7 Science 2.0 'pioneers' but none of them seem to know what Science 2.0 is. So send me a mail or leave a comment and tell me what you think it is. My next article will be laying it out once and for all, though I expect people will still use Science 2.0 like "jobs saved or created" - basically to mean whatever they feel like.
edit: by request I have added in a copy of the Science 2.0 trademark registration, I guess so it can show up in Google or something.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Sexual Fantasies: Threesomes Are Normal, Golden Showers Not So Much
- The Vampire Deer Of Afghanistan
- Resveratrol Reverses Benefits Of Exercise - Study
- Okay With Disgusting Images? You Vote This Way 95 Percent Of The Time
- Aging Brains Aren't Necessarily Declining Brains
- Cui Bono? B-corporations And The University
- The Ghosts Of The First Neolithic People In A Paleo World
- "It's vital to understand that while crapping where you eat is not linked to having conservative..."
- "16 people who were originally doing less than 30 minutes exercise a day then did how much low volume..."
- "Trouble is without citations this article reads like a slew of anecdotes. It begins promisingly..."
- "Do you work for Hank? Or do you just parrot his line of bullshit, and try to legitimize it with..."
- Two-faced anti-GMO groups: Block crop and food innovations then claim Big Ag prevents GMO innovations
- Why support erodes for GMO labeling (Hint: It’s not because of spending by Big Ag)
- Genetic “hall of mirrors” with large palindromes, yet smaller: What’s mighty about the mouse
- Gut bacteria an easy scapegoat for disease, but connections hard to prove
- Vermont Rube Goldberg-like GMO labeling law exempts GMO filled natural supplements
- Downside to GMOs: Yields have become so good, they exceed processing capacity
- More penalties on the way for hospitals that treat the poor? New U-M study suggests so
- Cancer cell fingerprints in the blood may speed up childhood cancer diagnosis
- Study of Chile earthquake finds new rock structure that affects earthquake rupture
- Tracking a gigantic sunspot across the Sun
- Massive geographic change may have triggered explosion of animal life
Books By Writers Here