Life of a Lab Rat

Bit of a furore.

Unfortunately it's not in real life, but in the so-called 'blogosphere'. I'd like to take this opportunity to say that while I am not opposed to neologisms in general, the class of them that starts with 'blog-' is monstrously barbarous and should be avoided whenever possible. Sometimes, sickeningly, this is not possible. I apologize to my more discerning readers, both of you.

I have been wondering, myself, about the purpose of this weblog and sciencey weblogs in general. I am not totally sure on why I wanted to do this, except that 'it seemed a good idea at the time'. I know I had some noble notion that I could attempt to make science and the scientific way of thinking accessible to Bruce and Sheila Public, and some completely selfish motives that were to do with channelling my creative instincts. But I never thought that it was just about me, by me and for me — an exercise in self-gratification.

I am sorry to say that most science weblogs, like most other weblogs, are just that. The same old tired polemic, the cliquey self-congratulatory back-slapping, the dreary, badly-written mundaneness of it all. To be fair, there are one or two honorable exceptions (I won't link to the ones I care to read here, but take a look in the sidebar), but Sturgeon's Law holds here as everywhere. And sometimes it's the 'famous', high-profile ones that are the worst.

So I was more than a little intrigued when I saw that some cove has taken it upon himself to review all 50-odd weblogs at http://scienceblogs.com/.

Oh boy.

The comments on his first review at blogcritics.org (and he has got to at least 'E' on his own weblog) are thoughtful, but the clowns at scienceblogs.com, and their fellow-travellers, have been disappointingly predictable. The measured critique is worth comparing with the kneejerk reactions (and I will not do them the honour of a link; you can find them for yourself, starting with 'A'). The vitriol starts with 'who is this guy and what gives him the authority to review science blogs?' and works it way up to 'it's my damn' weblog and it's about me, not the reader!'. Except not nearly so eloquent.

And I have a number of problems with this. If blogging is not just an exercise in masturbation (there, I said it), then surely there is an expectation that the reader will say what he or she would like to read — within the remit of the weblog, naturally. If yours is not (primarily) a mechanism for collaboration with other scientists, then are you not trying to communicate with 'the public'? And if you are trying to communicate, then it is all about the reader, and not about the author. Put another way, if someone writes to please themselves, they should not be surprised if they have no readers, or the readers they do have are clones of themself, or they receive criticism for writing crap. In the real world, writers who please themselves and write craply do not sell many books (D*n Br*wn a dishonorable exception).

Communication, whether written or oral, is not about the person doing the speaking. Good communicators know how to bend, yes, spin their message so that it falls on sympathetic ears. No, I do not mean that you should not communicate a necessary yet distasteful message; rather that you have to find a way to make people listen and understand what you are trying to say, even — especially! — if they do not agree with you. (This also ties in with part of the reason I think the blogosphere (spit) is so pants. People write for themselves, not their readership: so the arguments are incoherent, the responses are automatic and the spelling is atrocious. If you can not be bothered to proofread your entries, nor to construct a stream of logical thought, then you show no respect for your readership and you do not deserve them).

Does it matter? Does it really matter if this clique closes ranks and refuses to listen to criticism? Who loses out?

I think we all do. Scientists lose out because people look at us and say "What a bunch of wankers". Non-scientists lose out because they miss the opportunity to learn more about science and scientists. And while the morbidly stupid have access to a computer and can make inane comments such as those found following certain letters in The Australian (and indeed, while they hold editorial positions in national newspapers!), then there is a duty to communicate wherever we can. There is a duty to show that science is not about facts, but that it is a way of finding out how the world works (and a way that seems to work. Do not confuse 'technology' with 'science'). There is a also duty to show that scientists are the public, and have the same hopes and fears and dreams and debts and loves and heartaches as everyone else. Balance in the force there must be, mmmm-mmm.

Does anyone else think I need a 'rant' tag?