AllinaComm

The respected science publication Nature gets the whole Web 2.0/social media/new media thing. In addition to fully embracing the technologies of Web 2.0 with blogs, podcasts and such, one of its blogs (Climate Feedback) has an item on whether this democratization of media is good for communicating detailed and technical subjects.

While all of this enables us to reach our audience in new ways – and to communicate science in a more engaging and rapid manner – the scientific community remains divided on whether Web 2.0 is good for science communication.

That’s one of the topics under discussion in this month’s issue of Nature Geoscience (subscription) which features a pair of Commentaries, one by Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS and one by Myles Allen of the University of Oxford, giving their respective opinions on whether blogging is a worthwhile means of communicating science, and specifically climate change.

They conclude that the onus is on us to use the new media, not shy away from it.

• …in an society where science rarely ever makes front page news and gets far too few column inches, blogs provide a forum for some of the best science journalists to communicate more frequently – and in more depth – than they could do otherwise.
• Climate bloggers will get it wrong sometimes, as will journalists. But I would argue that the onus is on scientists to engage, engage and engage rather than shy away…

As communicators, we need to embrace the new media. There’s no putting this genie back in the bottle. I wouldn’t want to even if we could.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.