Jack Stilgoe
Senior Researcher
Jack Stilgoe works on science and technology projects and specialises in issues of science, society and public engagement.
at 5:34am
on Saturday, 9th August 2008
I'm weekending at the Scifoo camp inside the Googleplex, Silicon Valley. Geeks, Nobel laureates, Astronauts and hangers-on have gathered at science's bleeding edge to share their thoughts with no agenda, no hierarchy and ridiculous amounts of food.
As though it had been decreed, today's first session clawed towards Science 2.0. Tim O'Reilly, the man to blame for everything 2.0, began with some explanations. Web 2.0, apparently, is about participation. Google is king, even though its model relies on participation being largely unintentional. Wikipedia is the foot soldier. All very 2006. But what does it mean for science?
In the absence of watertight explanations, we have to look to examples. So we have Epernicus, a social network bringing scientists together. And we have Alzforum, which brings scientists together, points them in the direction of Alzhimer's disease and introduces a level of patient participation through various forums. We have 23andme, which will do you a personal genome for $1000, build science's knowledge base and try to dampen down any ethical quibbles. Most interestingly, we have Wikiprofessionals.
Wikiprofessionals tries to solve the big problem of science 2.0: How does the participation ethic of the web work with the disciplined, disciplinary and arcane language of science? The site uses experts to collect synonyms and draw connections between areas of the life sciences. One of its founders describes how a "knowledge cloud" produced by the site about Malaria threw up a link to a previously-unconsidered drug. Is this the beginning of the Semantic web of science? Or is this, as Chris Anderson suggests, part of Google's inevitable scienticide? It is, of course, far too early to say. But that doesn't stop people in Silicon Valley.
UPDATE: Betsy Devine, who organised the session, has blogged it.
As though it had been decreed, today's first session clawed towards Science 2.0. Tim O'Reilly, the man to blame for everything 2.0, began with some explanations. Web 2.0, apparently, is about participation. Google is king, even though its model relies on participation being largely unintentional. Wikipedia is the foot soldier. All very 2006. But what does it mean for science?
In the absence of watertight explanations, we have to look to examples. So we have Epernicus, a social network bringing scientists together. And we have Alzforum, which brings scientists together, points them in the direction of Alzhimer's disease and introduces a level of patient participation through various forums. We have 23andme, which will do you a personal genome for $1000, build science's knowledge base and try to dampen down any ethical quibbles. Most interestingly, we have Wikiprofessionals.
Wikiprofessionals tries to solve the big problem of science 2.0: How does the participation ethic of the web work with the disciplined, disciplinary and arcane language of science? The site uses experts to collect synonyms and draw connections between areas of the life sciences. One of its founders describes how a "knowledge cloud" produced by the site about Malaria threw up a link to a previously-unconsidered drug. Is this the beginning of the Semantic web of science? Or is this, as Chris Anderson suggests, part of Google's inevitable scienticide? It is, of course, far too early to say. But that doesn't stop people in Silicon Valley.
UPDATE: Betsy Devine, who organised the session, has blogged it.
LOGIN to add comments
Comments