Group items tagged

research become meaningful only after confronting results with the scientific community

peer-reviewed publication is the best communication channel we had so far

new communication channels complement peer-reviewed publication

two important attributes in which they differ from traditional models: openness and communication time

increased openness and shorter communication time happens already in publishing industry (via Open Access movement and experiments with alternative/shorter ways of peer-review)

say few words about experiments that go little or quite a lot beyond publication

My Experiment as an example of an important step towards openness

least radical idea you can find in modern Science 2.0 world

virtual research environment

focus is put on sharing scientific workflows

use case

diagram of the “methods” sections from experimental (including bioinformatics analyses) publications

make it easier for others to understand what we did

can open towards other scientists we can also open towards non-experts

people from all over the world compete in improving structural models of proteins

helps in improving protein structure prediction software and in understanding protein folding

combine teaching and data annotation

metagenome sequences in first case and chemistry spectra in the second

interactive visualizations of chemical structures, genomes, proteins or multidimensional data

communicate some difficult concepts faster

new approaches in conference reporting

report in real time from the conference

followed by a number of people, including even the ones that were already on the conference

“open notebook science” which means conducting research using publicly available, immediately updated laboratory notebook

The reason I did a model for Cameron’s grant was that I subscribed to his feed before

I didn’t subscribe to Cameron because I knew his professional profile

I read his blog, I commented on it and he commented on mine, etc.

participation in online communities

important part of Science 2.0 is the fact that it has human face

PhDs about the same time

first was from a major Polish institute, the second from a major European one

what a head of a lab both would apply to will see

gap we must fill, this is between current research and lectures we give today

access to real-time scientific conversation

follow current research and decide what is important to learn

synthetic biology

not all universities in world have synthetic biology courses

didn’t stop these students, and they plan to participate in IGEM again

not only scientists – there are librarians, science communicators, editors from scientific journals, people working in biotech industry

community of life scientists

even people without direct connection to science

diverse skills and background

online conference

interact with them and to learn from them