contentious.com

Recently I was quoted in an article by Declan Butler in Nature magazine, “Science in the Web Age: Joint Efforts.” (Thanks, Declan!)

A few weeks ago Butler sent me an intriguing list of observations and questions about whether and how “Web 2.0″ technologies are affecting science, to which I responded at length. He chose to only include a brief quote from me – which is fine, he obviously had a lot of great material to choose from. But since I put a lot of thought into my response, I thought I’d share it here…

Here is my complete response to Butler’s query:

Frankly, I think the whole Web 2.0 thing is mostly buzzword-centric hype meant to sell books, consulting, and conferences. After all, what’s most intriguing about “Web 2.0″ is an evolution that’s been happening gradually for years – not something sudden and wholly new like a software release.

Beneath that hype are some intriguing and important long-term trends worth exploring. However, I think the significance of those trends only appears if you view them on a continuum of human communication and cooperation. This ongoing evolution significantly predates the internet, and definitely predates the latest round of “Web 2.0″ tools and phenomena.

My view is that the more important point, which is much bigger than “Web 2.0,” is that we’re experiencing a Renaissance of public discourse – definitely online, but not merely online.

This, in turn, has led to efforts to develop communication and collaboration tools that are incredibly useful, engaging, and accessible to individuals. These tools make it easy for people to talk and share in very personal, creative ways. Used well, they spark creativity and foster community. And with these tools, we create records of humanity’s collective efforts to make meaning.

So, to be clear, “Web 2.0″ is part of an effect. The root cause, as I see it, is the revitalization of public discourse. I think most people, especially the Web 2.0 crowd, get that backward.

For centuries, most of humanity’s collective efforts have been constrained by limited, hierarchical communication – both in terms of tools/channels (quill pens, printing press, broadcast towers) and authority. (Who decides which information is worthy of being distributed/promoted via the most efficient/prominent channels?)

In science, these constraints have determined:

• Which questions are deemed worthy of scientific investigation and resources.
• Who is considered a “real” or “credible” scientist.
• Which research gets published or promoted, and where and how that happens (including peer review).
• How scientific debate, collaboration, and consensus happen.

Add to this: Sound science is methodical. It has to be, in order to be measurable and reproducible. You just can’t have science if you don’t have good quality control on the information. Ideas behind research and techniques may be creative or radical, but in order to be sound science they must be implemented and recorded methodically.

When you put all the communication constraints together with the personality types attracted to methodical full-time science (and especially the kind of folks attracted to science administration and funding), you end up with more tunnel vision and “rear-view window steering” than creativity and insight.

MY PREDICTION

I think “Web 2.0″ will affect the scientific establishment, but only indirectly and incrementally – and science is very much about establishment, for better or worse.

That said, I do think Web 2.0 tools will make it easier for scientists (especially amateur scientists) to have “unofficial” discussions and exploration, and to publicize their collective efforts through unofficial channels. It might also make certain kinds of research easier, or possible – but any technological advance can do that.

This has always happened, of course. For instance, astronomy, ornithology, and geology have all seen major contributions by “amateurs,” or by “rogue scientistist” conducting independent research and communicating via whatever means were available to them. I also see this happening in my fields of expertise, energy and the environment (which are not sciences, but which cross paths with a lot of science). The official, credible, “real” science releated to these areas is conducted in government, corporate, or institutional “silos” with very controlled information-sharing. It’s generally also slow, and tends to focus on exploring minor branches of inquiriy firmly rooted in the economic status quo. True innovation tends to come from odd places, often with meager resources.

For instance, there are several coops, small businesses, and avid amateurs involved in various renewable energy development projects (especially biodiesel, biomass, and solar) who are doing very interesting applied science, but not necessarily scientifically sound research. Consequently, the scientific establishment usually immediately discounts their work – sometimes rightly, sometimes rashly.

Then you’ve gotta ask the big question: Sound science is methodical – but methodical easily becomes plodding, and plodding science usually is not particularly beneficial or profound. But I digress…

More flexible collaboration and communication tools will help science – and here the fruits of “Web 2.0″ will provide some incremental improvements. However, so did primitive BBSs, mimeographed newsletters, the telephone system, or even simple photography and postal mail. Look how astronomy (especially amateur astronomy) benefitted from each of those innovations.

But will “Web 2.0″ overhaul how science gets done? Will it undermine or remake the scientific establishment? Honestly, I don’t think so – any more than “Total Quality Management” overhauled business. I think it’s mainly just a buzzword. But I do think these tools may play a role in something I do expect: a resurgence of interest in and respect for amateur science.

I could be wrong, of course. I am often wrong. That doesn’t seem to stop me from pontificating, as you see, but what the heck, you asked.

Personally, I think the scientific establishment will gain more – and change more – from the movement toward interdisciplinary research and review than anything else. THAT is what directly challenge science’s cultural, value, and reward systems. Also, if we could overhaul the heinously rote fashion in which most formal education (public and private) is conducted, and rediscover the inherent value of pure research, we’d probably see more brilliance in all human endeavors, including science.

…I’m not holding my breath on that stuff, though.