The latest issue of the blog carnival Tangled Bank is available in very well crafted and entertaining form at Greg Laden‘s blog. Enjoy.

The latest rounds of the blog carnivals Gene Genie (#8) and Mendel’s Garden (#15) are available at Eye On DNA and The Daily Transcript, respectively.

Follow these links to submit your stories for the next issues of Gene Genie (June 17 at DNA Direct Talk) and Mendels’ Garden (July 2 at Eye On DNA).

Official sites: Gene Genie and Mendel’s Garden.

Here is an update on the next two editions of the bi-weekly Gene Genie blog carnival:

Issue #8 will be hosted by Eye on DNA and will be up June 3.

Issue #10, the Canada Day ultraspectacular edition, will be hosted here at Genomicron (and that’s July 1 for you non-Canucks out there).

Participation is not in any way restricted to blogs that are part of the new DNA Network — if you write about genetics and would like to be included, please feel welcome to submit your post here.

Gene Genie is particularly relevant in my experiment to use blogging as a form of public outreach by scientists in light of its mention recently, along with Mendel’s Garden, in the prestigious journal Cell.

It has been about 5 weeks now since I began this experiment to use a blog as a mechanism for public outreach. I have had some good experiences — seeing some excellent posts, learning a lot, making new friends and joining networks. There have also been some lively debates that I think showcase the utility of the medium for what really are high level scientific conversations.

There has also been a dark side, unfortunately. Sadly, I am not describing spam or anti-science, but how I have been treated by some of my fellow science blog participants. In particular, I point to the recent discussion about the Liu and Ochman flagellum article. A brief recount — the paper was published in the journal PNAS, several bloggers commented on it, and then Nick Matzke came down hard on it. I am glad he used his expert knowledge to point out potential flaws in the study, but I was very put off by the polemical manner in which this was accomplished. And I said so. I have been calling for more respectful discussions, and have been critical of the way this particular case was conducted.

Most recently, there have been discussions on T. taxus (very interesting and scholarly) and Panda’s Thumb, the latter of which has been staggering in its vitriol. I encourage you to have a quick read of the comment section to see what I am referring to. This episode really makes me question whether blogging is appropriate for scientists. I hope that the positive will outweigh the negative in the end, but being personally attacked for voicing an opinion (ironically, about elevating the discourse on blogs) by science bloggers is not something I will have much desire to endure.

Let us hope that this is not the true nature of blogs, but simply an anomalous occurrence.

By way of follow up to my last post, and as a means of keeping things positive and forward-looking, here are some recommendations that come to mind regarding how the credibility of blogs as a medium for scientific commentary and discussion could be advanced. I hope this doesn’t come across as preachy. My intention is simply to share what I think would make me as a scientist more inclined to take blogs seriously as a venue for communicating in (versus about) science.

1) Stick to the science.

When discussing anti-evolutionism or culture or politics, obviously this would not apply. However, in commentaries that are intended to be about the merits of a scientific study, the focus should be on the science. Anti-evolutionism is a real concern, but it does not drive how science is conducted.

2) Avoid unnecessary rhetoric, polemics, or emotionally charged language.

We have all read papers that have raised our blood pressure. But if one wants his or her arguments to be taken seriously, then cooler heads must prevail. Throw the paper across the room if you must, but when you write out your critique, keep it scholarly.

3) Make it clear to non-scientists that this is a discussion, not peer review.

Blog comments, though potentially very effective in disseminating and evaluating scientific information, are not peer review. We do not want to give the wrong impression that what happens on blogs is on the same level of how most scientific papers are evaluated.

4) Eschew arguments from authority.

Arguments from authority are not acceptable in science. If you reject them when anti-evolutionists use them, avoid them in your own posts.

5) Other bloggers: don’t pass judgment without all the information.

The blogosphere is useful as a dissemination tool in large part because of its interconnected nature, with a large percentage of posts being links to other posts. When linking to another post, bloggers should avoid making strong statements about the paper or the commentary until the details are available. If you haven’t read the paper, or if the blogger to whom you are providing a link has not spelled out his or her arguments in detail, then scientifically you have no basis for drawing any conclusions either way about the article.

6) Commenters: avoid jumping on a bandwagon.

Everyone’s comments can be important, regardless of expertise. However, if you have not read or understood the paper in question, you may want to avoid calling for it to be retracted or speculating about the failure of peer review.

7) Contact the authors if appropriate.

There is no rule that says bloggers must not contact the authors of scientific papers. Most scientists are happy to discuss their work; they are generally very busy, however, so it is best to ask specific questions. If you are going to be critical, please bear in mind that in peer review, in print, or at meetings, authors typically have the opportunity to reply and the debate is not one-sided.

8) Provide references.

Scientific papers must reference pretty much everything they state that is not original to the authors. Blogs do not need to be this rigorous in referencing, but it does help to show that you have read something else besides other blogs. (And science writers: please tell us the title of the paper you are discussing; don’t just say “in an upcoming issue of X”!).

9) Choose the right blog*.

If a blog has a reputation for aggressive or even offensive comments, then it may not be appropriate as a place to start a serious discussion about scientific papers. At least, scientists are unlikely to participate if there is a high probability that they will come under personal attack or will be treated with disrespect.

I make these suggestions not to be critical, but because I remain optimistic about the potential of blogs to be employed in high level scientific discourse. As the medium matures, I hope that more scientists will take part, and thereby open more lines of communication to non-scientists. If anyone has additional recommendations or ideas of their own, please share them, be you scientist or non.

______________
* This is an updated entry added in light of my recent experience on a specific blog.

This is just a quick post to welcome University of Alberta PhD candidate David Shorthouse to the blogosphere with the launch of his new blog, iSpiders.

David edits the Canadian Arachnologist newsletter and developed the Nearctic Spider Database. He and I published a paper on spider genomes a few years ago that made the cover of Journal of Heredity.

David is interested in making biodiversity information open to everyone (as am I), so it’s worth checking out.

(Hat tip: iPhylo)

I began this blog largely as an experiment in public outreach. It is my belief that many people are interested in science, and that they would like an opportunity to interact with practicing scientists in a blog format. In this regard, I have been very happy to come across the blogs of other front line researchers, such as Jonathan Eisen’s The Tree of Life, Rosie Redfield’s RRResearch, John Dennehy’s The Evilutionary Biologist, Rod Page’s iPhylo, and John Logsdon’s Sex, Genes, and Evolution (Best. Title. Ever.), along with those of quite a number of active grad students.

The question was, would anyone visit my blog, in light of established (and unabashedly political and correspondingly popular) options such as PZ Myers’s Pharyngula (like anyone still needs a link) and Larry Moran’s Sandwalk, or the excellent science reporting of Carl Zimmer’s The Loom?

Well, after just under three weeks in the blogosphere, Genomicron has received over 1,250 hits from roughly 850 unique visitors. Not bad for an upstart. At least, the null hypothesis that a blog is not useful for outreach has taken a bit of a thrashing. Thanks to those who have stopped by, and I hope to see you again soon.