ScienceOnline2010 Follow-up: The Intersection of Medicine 2.0 and Science 2.0
The Intersection of Medicine 2.0 and Science 2.0 session at ScienceOnline2010 used an editorial published by Gunther Eysenbach in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) on Medicine 2.0 as a foundation for discussing five themes that emerge from Web 2.0 in health, healthcare, medicine and science: social networking, participation, apomediation, collaboration and openness. A description of the session can also be found here. Slides from the session are available here.
Participants agreed that Science 2.0 currently consists of scientists talking to other scientists and to the public, specifically those people interested in science. Generalized social networks such as Twitter and FriendFeed have been more successful at getting scientists to talk to other scientists than science-specific social networks, likely because of features, especially those found on FriendFeed, and ease of use. Additional reasons why scientists aren’t using science-specific social networks may include commercial taint and/or suspicion of a publisher’s overall motive.
Apomediation — tools that help scientists to prioritize and filter information — are useful in helping navigate digital information on the Internet. Publishers have built several apomediation tools, such as 2Collab (Elsevier), Connotea (NPG) and Citeulike (Springer) but are not actively taking a role in mediating scientific information. Google Sidewiki was discussed as a new tool for apomediation, since it has a scoring algorithm that can distinguish relevant from not-relevant comments.
Several participants felt that commenting on an article online had far less value to a scientist than writing his or her own article. Low scientist participation may also be due, in part, to comment accuracy being tied to scientific credibility; others felt that it was due to scientists being accustomed to the literature method. With respect to openness, intellectual property issues (i.e. patent applications) often keep scientists from openly sharing data. The restriction of Tweeting prepublication results and the disparity between bloggers and mainstream media getting embargoed information is becoming a real problem for both scientists and journalists.
Session statistics and conversation:
Below is a transcript of Twitter conversation in chronological order of posting during the ScienceOnline2010 session “Medicine 2.0 and Science 2.0 — where do they intersect?”.
Number of Tweets: 117 (average of 1.8 tweets/minute during the 65 minute session)
Number of unique Tweeters: 17
wjjessen: Slides and introductory material for the ScienceOnline2010 session “Medicine 2.0 and Science 2.0″ rel=”nofollow” href=”http://bit.ly/4n9KpM #scio10
NextGenScience: Slides and introductory material for the ScienceOnline2010 session “Medicine 2.0 and Science 2.0″ rel=”nofollow” href=”http://bit.ly/4n9KpM #scio10
Bonnycastle: RT @wjjessen: Slides and introductory material for the ScienceOnline2010 session “Medicine 2.0 and Science 2.0″ rel=”nofollow” href=”http://bit.ly/4n9KpM #scio10
simon_frantz: At the Medicine 2.0 session #scio10
freesci: Medicine 2.0 – enables communications between caregivers, patients, health professionals and biomed researchers. #scio10
teh_skeptic: At “Medicine 2.0 and Science 2.0: Where do they intersect?” In related news, I <3 #scio10
ivanoransky: In session on medicine 2.0, @wjjessen: Science 2.0 still mostly scientists talking w/other scientists; audience member says wider #scio10
simon_frantz: Uptake of Science 2.0 (for want of a better phrase) is slow in part because it’s still mostly scienists talking to scientists #scio10
christineottery: WTF is medicine 2.0? w/ @wjjessen #scio10. Medicine research collaboration over social networks or blogging about medicine for layperson?
ivanoransky: I am eager to learn what “apomediation” is, @wjjessen promises to get to the mysterious word he had on a slide just now #scio10
drval: Listening to @wjjessen at #scio10 We’re wondering why scientists are so far behind in SM. Audience member suggest it’s because we’re weird.
drval: Elsevier rep says scientists are “anti-social” because they don’t want people to steal their research ideas. #scio10
nancyshute: Are scientists too introverted for social media? 1 woman says SM are perfect for scientists because they don’t have to meet. #scio10
bmossop: RT @drval: Elsevier rep says scientists are “anti-social” because they don’t want people to steal their research ideas. #scio10
ivanoransky: RT @drval: Elsevier rep says scientists are “anti-social” because they don’t want people to steal their research ideas. #scio10
simon_frantz: RT @drval: Elsevier rep says scientists are “anti-social” because they don’t want people to steal their research ideas. #scio10
simon_frantz: Good comment: Science 2.0 isn’t about reaching everyone, it’s about reaching interested people and providing access to information #scio10
freesci: Point of Science 2.0 is not to reach everybody – it’s to reach everybody interested (comment by @mndoci ) #scio10
christineottery: More general social networks more traction than specific sci networks eg nature Networks, more interesting, basically #scio10
axiomsofchoice: &ppl discvry? RT @freesci: Point of Science 2.0 is not to reach everybody – it’s to reach everybody interested (comment by @mndoci ) #scio10
ivanoransky: Generalized networks-Twitter FB LinkedIn FF-better @ getting scientists together than science-specific sites, says @wjjessen #scio10
simon_frantz: General social networks have achieved critical mass, specific science networks haven’t — question is why? #scio10
ivanoransky: Agree RT @simon_frantz: Science 2.0 isn’t about reaching everyone, it’s about reaching interested people and providing access 2 info #scio10
NahumG: RT @EZF_Executives RT @drval Elsevier rep-scientists r anti-social bcs they don’t want people 2steal research ideas #scio10 MORE COMPLICATED
christineottery: Do people distrust branded sci networks – commercial taint? Friendfeed/Twitter have neutrality over Nature, Elsevier #scio10
simon_frantz: Comment: Scientists might not trust branded science networks, eg Nature Network, because they suspect publisher’s overall motives #scio10
ivanoransky: More scientists aren’t on Nature Networks and other big brands, says @sennoma, bc of distrust of what brands may do with info #scio10
simon_frantz: The self-confessed scientists in the audience use science networks as a research tool #scio10
nancyshute: Just about to hear the answer to @ivanoransky’s big question: What is apomediation? Sounds like trusted guides, a la Yelp. #scio10
christineottery: Apomediation: navigation and filter tools – via reviews, recommendations eg Research Blogging, citeulike, 2Collab, Google, PLoS One #scio10
ivanoransky: What apomediaries are: They help uses navigate the flood of information afford by the Internet and digital media #scio10
christineottery: @googlesidewiki – for the uninitiated it is a way to allow annotation on papers and research online. Then you can share your notes #scio10
freesci: Google Sidewiki has a scoring algorithm that is able to distinguish between important and not-relevant comments. #scio10
ivanoransky: Examples of apomediaries, according to @wjjessen: citeulike, google, researchblogging, connotea #scio10
simon_frantz: For anyone dying to find out what apomediation means, it’s navigation and filter tools eg Research Blogging, citeulike, Google #scio10
ivanoransky: Google rep (they co-sponsored #scio10 and are here to talk about GoogleSideWiki) says she hadn’t heard term “apomediary” either.
christineottery: RT @freesci: Google Sidewiki has a scoring algorithm that is able to distinguish between important and not-relevant comments. #scio10
drval: Audience member: A scientist can get far more value from writing an article than commenting on someone else’s. #scio10
drval: Steve Koch: Why low SM participation? Scientists must be cautious in how they comment, because cred is tied to their accuracy. #scio10
ivanoransky: Audience member says there’s a tall barrier to scientists commenting on blogs and sidewikis because they’re used 2 literature method #scio10
ivanoransky: RT @drval Steve Koch: Why low SM participation? Scientists must be cautious in how they comment, bc cred is tied to their accuracy #scio10
drval: @wjjessen Discussing “apomediation” – tools that help scientists prioritize and filter information. E.g. Elsevier’s 2Collab #scio10
christineottery: Open-source textbooks for schools a bon idée? Bio textbooks out-of-date by the time they are published says be-hatted man #scio10
drval: Steve Koch: I care more about whether I like the researcher, than what their research is about. #scio10
drval: @wjjessen says that intellectual property issues keep scientists from sharing data. Sometimes it’s a patent issue. #scio10
ivanoransky: Can researchers truly be open with unpublished data? asks @wjjessen #scio10 Where is @jcbradley when you need him?
googlesidewiki: RT: @christineottery – for the uninitiated Sidewiki is a way to allow anno. on papers and research online. You can share notes #scio10
nancyshute: Meetings that restrict Tweeting of prepub results are becoming a real problem for journos, says @ivanoransky #scio10
drval: RT @nancyshute: Meetings that restrict Tweeting of prepub results are becoming a real problem for journos, says @ivanoransky #scio10
ivanoransky: If you publish something online, even not peer-reviewed, does the publishing time stamp show you got there first? @wjjessen #scio10
christineottery: Can sci publishing be truly open? Like at conferences? Ahem! Well there’s no privacy if everybody is tweeting everything! #scio10
ivanoransky: RT @drval @nancyshute: Meetings that restrict Tweeting of prepub results are becoming a real problem for journos, says @ivanoransky #scio10
drval: @nancyshute Says that there are cases where bloggers get embargoed info before MSM. Example: anti-vaccine bloggers. #scio10
ePatientDave: RT @ivanoransky: If u publish something online, even not peer-revwd, does timestamp show u got there 1st? @wjjessen #scio10
cardcc: @ivanoransky researchers can be open with data, but likely they won’t (for a while). Bleeding edge not = the mass. Change takes time. #scio10
ChemSpiderman: RT @freesci: Google Sidewiki has a scoring algorithm that is able to distinguish between important and not-relevant comments. #scio10
Tagged as 2Collab, apomediation, Citeulike, collaboration, commenting, Connotea, credibility, Elsevier, FriendFeed, Google Sidewiki, intellectual property, Medicine 2.0, NPG, openness, participation, patent, prepublication, Science 2.0, scientific, social networking, Springer, Twitter, Web 2.0
Social Media Discussion Around the Web
3 Comments 
3 Tweets(FriendFeed comments should be available below)
7 Comments
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Leave a Reply Here or Both Here and on FriendFeed
On FriendFeed, this post was liked by 0 people and commented on 2 times hide
-
Minor correction: CiteULike is independent and not part of Springer - they just sponsor us (Thanks Springer!)
-
Thanks Fergus. I've updated the presentation.
ScienceOnline2010 Follow-up: The Intersection of Medicine 2.0 and Science 2.0 http://bit.ly/6crCyb (includes stats and conversation) #scio10
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Minor correction: CiteULike is independent and not part of Springer – they just sponsor us (Thanks Springer!)
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Twitter for liveblogging a conference, but that tweetstream contains a lot of good stuff. Quote of the conference for me: "Point of Science 2.0 is not to reach everybody – it’s to reach everybody interested" (Deepak, via Pawel).
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Thanks Fergus. I’ve updated the presentation.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
As a medical student, currently research scholar in the U.S., and web developer for years (including working 1 year full-time on a social network for gamers) I am a little sceptical about developments like “Medicine 2.0″.
When reading the article and slideshow mentioned in this article who the people are that jump onto the “Web 2.0 hype”. The images look like they wanted to use some catchy phrases like “Ajax”, “Semantic web” and “XML”. Do these people know what they are talking about or are they just fans of, what used to be, fancy terms?
I do see the advantages of using the modern web for communication between researchers, doctors and patients. But to have a good and fundamental discussion about the possibilities I believe that it should be held in constructive way. Not by throwing in some random terms to look cool…
I agree completely Niek. That’s why the slides as well as our discussion at Science Online 2010 focused on using the web for communications between doctors, patients and researchers, and were devoid of technology terms such as “Ajax” or “Semantic Web”. Sure, many of the recent technologies have improved user interfaces, but in the end a GUI is just a GUI. The real advance isn’t the technology, it’s how we’re using the technology.