Blogging about blogging

     Comparing different approaches to communicating science raises some interesting questions, the most important of which deals with the very existence of science blogs. What is the purpose of a science blog? While I don't have the answer, an overview of a selection of blogs may be a good starting point in resolving this question.

     Since I'm listening to the radio program right now, I'll begin with the Science Friday blog. This blog complements the radio program and is regularly updated. SciFri frequently blends topics like technology, internet security, and economics with scientific issues. While the blog is not disconnected from basic research (the authors do interpret primary literature), the focus is certainly more on the applied side of science. SciFri seems to be avoiding the pitfalls of the deficit model (belief that getting the public to understand scientific issues means forcing data down their throats), because the authors strive to relate these issues to "the real world" and the comings and going of our daily lives.

     In stark contrast to SciFri, there is Parasite of the Day. This small-scale blog highlighted a parasite a day for an entire year and is now updated less vigorously. The goal of the blog seems to be communicating science for the sake of sharing information. The contributors have no real agenda beyond highlighting interesting organisms people would not normally hear about. How does this apply to anyone who is not infected with some exotic organism? Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is fine by me, but this blog seems to have a limited audience, and the lack of any applied angle, may prevent people from ever caring about the content. And yet, I think it is quite admirable to undertake a project like this just to share enthusiasm about a subject you find interesting.

     Another low-profile blog, Marine Conservation News takes a very different approach to communicating science than Parasite of the Day. The authors' focus is entirely applied, and relate content to their readers that highlight the current state of marine conservation. Their informed opinions, make the content highly approachable for the general public, despite the fact that the blog does not have many readers. While the blog doesn't really communicate science in a primary sense (interpreting journal articles), it does spread awareness of conservation issues that are ultimately related to current scientific endeavors. The blog may be more successful than others in that it often provides outlets for its readers to participate in marine conservation.

     Leaving the realm of small, personal blogs takes us to Scientists at Work, which is a component of the NY Times. The blog takes the form of field notes, sharing with the public what it is like to actually do science. Obviously, someone at the Times thought the public would actually care to read about this. It can be a bit tedious to read, but by humanizing the scientific process (and scientists) the blog helps to break the traditional (mis)conception of Bunsen burners, beakers, and lab coats being the defining characteristics of science. Readers of this blog learn about how research is done, but is this really a way of communicating science?

     From personalized accounts of science research, I next move to comment on the cleverly-titled blog The EEB & Flow. This blog is dedicated to interpreting current work in ecology and evolutionary biology, and features numerous authors who provide quality insight into a diversity of articles. This blog doesn't seem to work for the general public, as the material is often too dense and jargon-laden. However, this only makes me question the idea of what defines "the public". There are a number of graduate students in my department who have a general background in ecology and evolution, though they are not specialists in the field. We can read this blog and get something meaningful out of it, so I think that we are "the public" for this blog. The blog post about children scientists is fitting, as it questions what it is that defines a scientist. The same issue arises with defining the public, and I think it would be safest to avoid formulating any strict rules regarding either term. Unlike Scientists at Work, this blog is very impersonal and is therefore more in line with the normal means by which scientists communicate their work. This is not to say that one method is better or worse than the other, and the blog entry regarding the bacteria-arsenic controversy raises some interesting ideas about scientific communication in the modern age. Would it even be possible for scientists to move the peer review process to an online open forum, where hypotheses and data live and die by group consensus? Would scientists even bother to participate in this activity?

     Last, but not least, is Zooillogix. Taking a humorous approach to communicating science, this blog shares a general wonder about the natural world while occasionally delving into primary literature. The incorporation of humor, personal asides, and media (youtube features prominently in this blog) may make this blog more approachable than many of the above. If most Americans are learning about science outside of the classroom, one has to wonder if a blog that functions similarly to things like Animal Planet has hit upon the right formula for communicating with the public. What is lost/gained from taking a more casual approach to communicating science?

     Reviewing these blogs brings me back to the original question I posed: What is the purpose of a science blog? That question could be more productively rephrased as: What should science blogging do? These blogs show that blogs can interpret primary sources of scientific results, make science more interesting, illustrate why doing science matters, give insights into the process of science, and  simply share enthusiasm for different topics in science. Are all of these pursuits worthwhile? Which approach is most effective? Most importantly, are blogs even the correct approach to communicating with the public?