NASW Panel: My Handout and Links

Consensus has always been a crucial aspect of how science gets done, and consensus pretty much requires conversation. Therefore, since blogs are such a great tool for conducting the public conversation, you’d think scientists (and science writers) would be all over the blogosphere, right?

Apparently, not so. While there are some very good blogs by scientists and science writers, this is definitely not a crowded corner of the blogosphere.

On Saturday I’ll be speaking on a panel at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers (NASW). The topic is “Blogs and RSS. Science writers Carl Zimmer and Joel Shurkin, both of whom blog, will be on the panel with me. I’m looking forward to it.

While I’m there, I hope to encourage more science writers to at least start reading weblogs, and to seriously consider creating their own blogs. They are media people after all. It makes a ton of sense for anyone involved in the media to use weblogs to build reputations and relationships.

Here is my handout, and also some links that might interest the attendees…

Download my handout, a 1-page pdf document.

LINKS:

Contentious.com articles:

Some blogs by scientists:

You can find more science blogs at blog finder

Science writing blogs: In addition to Carl’s and Joel’s blogs mentioned above, check out:

Science blog (about science, mainly by science writers and editors)
Tangled Bank, a showcase of some of the best science writing from weblogs.

Science@NASA isn’t really a blog, more on an online magazine, but they do offer a podcast that features pretty good science writing for a general audience.

Articles:

The Power of the Blog, by David Secko, The Scientist, Aug. 1, 2005
My Blog, Your Microphone, by Carl Zimmer, The Loom, Oct. 17, 2005. Don’t miss the comments.

Newsgator is a free web-based feed reader service with pretty good usability. Good way to start using feeds if you’re new to them.

Typepad is a good, inexpensive hosted blogging service – perfect for non-geeks.

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

Post meta

This entry was written by Amy Gahran and posted on October 20, 2005 at 9:10 pm and filed under Amy's Adventures, Voices: Blogs, etc.. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Share with others

Post NASW Panel: My Handout and Links to digg.

Post NASW Panel: My Handout and Links to Reddit

5 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

Amy — Wonderful talk at NASW yesterday, and fabulous site. I created a blog several months ago — I’ve been wanting to
figure out the mysterious world of XML, and how to spread the word about my blog, but it can be overwhelming.
There’s so much confusing information out there, it was a tremendous relief to hear your talk — it was
filled with exactly the clear and practical information I needed. So I thank you — after studying your RSS feed guide, I now
have a feed on my site, and I’m directing everyone to your blog so they can learn this stuff too.

[Reply]

1. Rebecca Skloot on October 23rd, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Hi, Amy!

How fun-I was doing research tonight, checking your site, and there’s my panel.I’m looking forward to hearing ALL your comments and good savvy sense tomorrow, so thanks for joining us.

You won’t find anyone there but good ol’ science writers, who believe me, are just as anxious to get the science right as to make it interesting for the reader.

Many are pretty tech-shy,but I know you’ll be able to show them the benefits of communicating-REALLY communicating-with those readers, in a way they can’t when writing for their editors.

See you tomorrow!

Merry Bruns
ScienceSites Communications
http://www.sciencesitescom.com

[Reply]

2. Merry Bruns on October 21st, 2005 at 6:22 pm
For more context on the concept of scientific consensus apart from any particular politicized controversy, see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

- Amy Gahran
Editor, Contentious

[Reply]

3. Amy Gahran on October 21st, 2005 at 12:58 am
Mike, I appreciate your comments, but I just want to make it clear that I wasn’t trying to say anything at all with regard to climate change, and I hope this discussion doesn’t get sidetracked into that.

- Amy Gahran
Editor, Contentious

[Reply]

4. Amy Gahran on October 21st, 2005 at 12:50 am
I think science would benefit from blogging. In particular, the data derived from tax funded research should be made available on the net for independent verification. That is how open source software is tested and debugged. The fraudulent use of cooked data to support the falsehood of man-made global warming would have been found out much earlier than 2003. By the way, ‘consensus’ is a cooked-up term to support politicized science. Science by consensus is not science. You can’t fool nature or the laws of science because a large group thinks the same way - they may be wrong due to mindset or ideology. Think about the Roman Catholic Church and Galileo < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo >
The consensus was that Galileo was wrong. The sun rotated around the earth and that was it. However, one man, Galileo, was right. The satellite data does not support man-made global warming. The attempt by the United Nations and their supporters to suppress data that indicated the earth was warmer in the 1400s has been found out (see comparison chart here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html > I hold a Physics degree and worked as a radiation scientist at one time. I am not a climate scientist but I thoroughly understand the scientific method and the need for independent verification and rigorous standards of proof. It should be a severe embarrassment to the scientific community that individuals who are not even climate scientists can see through the erroneous computer algorithms and shoddy methods used by the global warming proponents.

[Reply]

5. Mike on October 21st, 2005 at 12:40 am