Science 2.0 Watch
    By Hank Campbell | April 4th 2008 11:01 PM | 11 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Science 2.0 has become rather ubiquitous in the science community, with articles upcoming in Science and Scientific American, and I am happy about that.   It's a trademark but that is not designed to be a cudgel to beat people over the head - more to prevent companies from using a popular term like Science 2.0 to line their pockets.

    To keep an eye out for the companies trying to exploit it for their gain I often take a look at who is using the term so I thought it would be a good community effort to highlight the people who use it in a positive way as well.   I'll update it from time-to-time though nowhere near as often as I might like.

    The Open Science Foundation has a section on Science Communication which reads "a subject is comprised of public understanding of science and scientific literacy, overlapping with the history of science, all things Science 2.0, Open Science, and myriad other areas." So they don't lump them all together as one thing.   They don't have many areas yet so add any here you may like.  They do list an article from Galaxy Zoo, which I regard as Science 2.0, though they may consider themselves 'citizen science' or even just smart usage of people with free time.

    A group calling itself International Institute of Informatics and Systemics (IIIS) (based in Venezuela so we'll have to give them a break) is a conference they are calling International Symposium on Science 2.0 and Expansion of Science: S2ES but they don't seem to have any Science 2.0 people there.   Still, they licensed use of the name from us so let's wish them well.

    Seed Magazine reprints Adrienne Burke's Conversations with seven Science 2.0 pioneers from a while back - relevant, since most would agree Adam Bly is a Science 2.0 pioneer.  Many of the other inclusions are still odd.

    Conference on Science Communication 2.0 held at the University of Girona - free, so they get some love on the Science 2.0 Watch page.   Most fascinating - a discussion on Science  2.0.1,whatever that might be.

    Science online: some considerations and links - ""Science 2.0" is a concept introduced recently to describe the next wave of science."  Geologically recent, maybe, but 8 years is not recent on the Internet.  I think it's more the case that a science worldwide community has become the norm rather than the exception so more people are hearing about it.

    I just noticed a somewhat flawed Wikipedia entry on Science 2.0 - so I wrote a few people asking if they want to help.

    Why it's Hard to Debate the Scientifically Illiterate - the answer to combating the intentionally and persistently scientifically illiterate?  Don't, but Science 2.0 gets a mention for trying.

    OpenSciNY Open Notebook Science - Jean-Claude Bradley, as big an advocate of open science as anyone and a Science 2.0 favorite.

    Science and the Web 2.0: A blog on Science 2.0 research did Barcamp Graz 2010 – A weekend in review.

    Web 2.0, Science 2.0 and Government 2.0 - harkens back to Scientific American's somewhat misguided effort to make Science 2.0 into just open access.

    ResearchGate has a section of Publication 2.0 and Science 2.0 - they recognize Science 2.0 is not just a new way to publish, a definition of Old Media prefers because then they control the discussion by controlling Democrat Conyers of Michigan and blocking open access. 

    Rafe Furst says what's missing from Science 2.0 is complex systems theory.  Me likey!

    Alex at The Emergent Fool goes a step further and says ontology and language are a necessary centerpiece and uses The Incommensurability of Scientific Theories as a waypoint.

    Conversations with seven Science 2.0 pioneers - the article includes few actual Science 2.0 pioneers, but instead big corporate media people the writer has heard of.   That's like writing about 7 rock&roll pioneers and then interviewing the Jonas Brothers.   Maybe someone should explain what the word 'pioneer' means along with 'Science 2.0'.

    The Real-time Web and Characteristics of New Media (the intersection of Science 2.0 and Medicine 2.0 - though I can't see evidence that Medicine 2.0 has the same cachet just yet)

    Social Media Help Generate Science 2.0 (not actually about Science 2.0, but instead about the wave of startups wanting to show scientists how to share data)

    Science 2.0 in Poland – getting popular, recognized as important 

    Science 2.0 The birth of the Citizen Scientist (more on data intensive science, and citizen scientists are not new - if anything, Big Government Science killed them long ago)

    Mendeley ‘the of Research’ Hits New Heights (an article on data sharing startup Mendeley - my only irk; "Mendeley have used this to birth ’science 2.0′."   Journalists.  Sheesh.)

    Semester 3 Week 8: Education 2.0 ('what does Science 2.0 mean?')

    The Furor Over Futurity and the Future of Science Journalism: A Talk With Jenny Leonard

    Science 2.0 -- Is Open Access Science the Future?  It is, of course, if we have anything to say about it, but hopefully Science 2.0 remains more than open access.   Efforts are on to 'jargonize' it (what does Web 2.0 mean today?  Anything you want) and we have to hope that the people doing so are outnumbered by the ones who would like to make a difference.

    Reflections on Science 2.0 from a distance - Part I (with links to 2 and 3)

    Social Networking Scientists and Researchers - data sharing article.  

    Science 2.0 workshop - Science 2.0 is not just a way to share data.   I guess I can keep pointing out that sharing data is not actual collaboration.

    NIH Funds a Social Network for Scientists — Is It Likely to Succeed?   Yes, the NIH is spending $12 million to create a social network for scientists that I created in my den for free.   This is why the government should not be more involved in science, despite what scientists with fear of the unknown think about the private sector.

    Science enters the age of Web 2.0  The BBC discovers Science 2.0 in October of 2009.   Yayyy old media.

    Scientists built the web. Do they love web 2.0? - seeks to understand why more scientists don't embrace the web, though it seems obvious:  for the same reason car companies don't put their designs on the web or anyone else with competitors.

    What I don't get is where they got the people to interview:  

    "Diana Rhoten, PhD, a School of Education alum and a program director at the Social Science Research Council. Rhoten was a program manager at the National Science Foundation’s Office of Cyberinfrastructure when many of the first Science 2.0 applications were being built. "

    What does that even mean?  The NSF is taking credit for Science 2.0?

    The "Science 2.0 sample pack: Web 2.0 applications tailored for the scientific community",  includes a few things that sound nifty, though I never heard of them before.   And then there is Nature Networks, which is a Science 2.0 effort, though it is owned, filtered, controlled and micromanaged by a multi-billion dollar publishing company, which feels pretty Science 1.0.

    Science 2.0: things that work and things that don’t (we're not mentioned, though we're one of the things that work the best, by any measure, be it traffic, participation or financial success)

    Ben Shneiderman, Professor of Computer Science at the University of Maryland, either dances about architecture or discusses his vision of what Science 2.0 is.

    This isn't Science, it's a Shampoo Advert (Inventing "Science 2.0" in Science) is mostly a rant about Science, the magazine, not being in love with Science 2.0.  Why would they be? They make a lot of money doing it their way. 

    Science 2.0, Science, March 7, 2008 "It is time for researchers in science to take network collaboration to the next phase and reap the potential intellectual and societal payoffs."   I suppose so but we have to be careful about meaningless platitudes being considered an actual definition.


    Have a Science 2.0 article that I have missed?   Let me know.
    A site calling itself Science 2.0 but spelling it "" discusses itself in this way
    Most people involved with science 2.0 have a product to plug or promote. This website is designed to be a neutral impartial community where people can discuss the pros and cons of each application so that they can be developed in the most efficient manner.
    and then on the front page is ironically advertising a seminar it calls Science Online London 2010 - cost £50.   "viva la evolucion" is also funny and all, but Science 2.0 is not another weapon in anyone's culture war against religion or capitalism.

    BONUS:  He is leeching content from other sites and posting it in whole form on his site.   Science 2.0 is not about piracy either.    Worse, he edits it.  At least he left the Science 2.0® in there.

    I get the intent, and that's fine, but you can't force people to share their work for free on your site.  We have a lot - more than anyone - of science book authors here and they have to retain rights to their work, as do you all.
    Hi Hank,

    Firstly, thanks for taking the time to check out the site. Secondly I'd just like to clarify a few things. I have no association with 'Science Online London 2010', the site is not for profit. I just thought it was relevant to those interested int science online, like myself. With regards to 'leeching', I apologise for using your content, I'm very much pushing for the open access, getting the word out to as many people as possible. I have now shortened any of your work to a short intro and a link to the site, I hope this is okay. I didnt mean to step on anyones toes, especially those working toward the same goal : )

    Thanks again for the interest and link.

    Kind regards,

    Peter Kraker did a presentation on Science 2.0 at Barcamp Graz and uploaded it here.  
    If you don't read German you can still follow along easily.   He mostly outlines collaborative tools and discusses the benefits of Science 2.0.   He is as confused about the Wikipedia entry for Science 2.0 as everyone else.

    His blog is here.

    Science 2.0 (change will happen….) (2010)

    In this paper we outline some of the main trends and changes we consider will affect science over the next 20 years, mainly driven by a new socio-technological paradigm, which results from the use of information and communication technologies. We first analyze three main trends (growth of scientific authorship; growth in scientific publishing; growth in data availability and processing) which are already visible now but will grow exponentially in the coming decades and will thus affect the dynamics of science. We then frame the above changes in the context of the transformation of the scientific production and publication conditions -- seen as production process of a cultural good -- which then feedback into the nature of science itself. Finally, we will take together these interrelated growth trends of authors, publications and data and pinpoint their profound and multiple impacts on the very nature of scientific work and its professional dynamics, in terms of increased openness, instability and inequality.
    If you are in Berlin this December and feel all Science 2.0 - ish, check out the SWAT4LS Workshop
    'Semantic Web Applications and Tools for Life Sciences' December 10th, 2010
    Science Accelerator is a gateway to science, including R&D results, project descriptions, accomplishments, and more, via resources from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI), U.S. Department of Energy. Science Accelerator was developed and is made available from OSTI as a free public service.

    I-KNOW 2010, includes Science 2.0 session and Student Cooperation Event
     First of all, there will be a session entitled Technologies for Science 2.0 (Sep 1, 14:00-16:00). The session will focus on the technological side of Science 2.0 and includes a talk from Jan Reichelt (founder and director of Mendeley).
    Science and the Web 2.0
    Low participation of scientists in Web 2.0
    Along with usage metrics such as downloads there are many measures that are generated from Science 2.0. Journals published by the Public Library of Science systematically collect many of these new metrics.
    ??  But he got me to leave a comment asking what this means.
    SynBioWave—a real-time communication platform for molecular and synthetic biology
    SynBioWave is a software suite that enables multiple distributed users to analyze and construct genetic parts in real-time collaboration. It builds on Google Wave and provides an extensible robot–robot–user communication framework, a menu driven user interface, biological data handling including DAS and an internal database communication. 
    Built on Google Wave means it won't be extensible in the future but if it works someone might pick this up.

    Another 'definition' of Science 2.0 that seems to be more interested in leveraging the name to be whatever the philosophical flavor of the month is.

    I am not sure people ever actual Google it before writing about it.

    "Science 2.0 focuses on the human-designed world in which the dynamics of trust, privacy, responsibility, and empathy are determinants of success"

    In one short sentence they manage to get 7 things completely wrong.