Science in general is a topic that goes way over my head. Learning chemistry and biology in high school was already an immensely difficult task for me to even comprehend, however, understanding how research papers are submitted and published is a different matter.
I find it conceptually quite interesting how scientists have utilized technology (most of which they create themselves) to further their knowledge through collaboration. From the evolution of language to the printing press, science has seen jumps in production the same way media has been effected by major inventions like the printing press or even (to a lesser extent) television and radio. It can be seen quite clearly the effects of (somewhat) open and free data, with the example of geneticists in the 80's (Pisani, 2011) revealing the great leaps and bounds people can make when working together. Perhaps something politicians could learn from.
These teachings are furthered when looking at the systems put in place when attempting to publish a formal research paper. The peer-reviewed system put in place by most if not all scientific journals and magazines is, in my opinion, one of the most legitimate forms of publishing; where, much unlike the internet, people who take their jobs and the papers submitted seriously are brought into the position of being able to accept or reject your findings. One of the best features of this process is the critique they give when rejecting a paper allowing for proper amendments that usually make the paper (in general) better. My point here is that the scientific community, while not the fastest mode of publication, have put into practice for a number of decades, a system that the rest of the world could learn from. Websites like Wikipedia have popped up in the last two decades or so which follow a very similar process of peer-reviewed submissions, and have revealed great results.
That is not to say the scientific world could not learn a thing or two from communications experts, with research papers going through an overzealous and tedious process which seems to be achievable in much fewer than three years (as required by Gavin of the realclimate blog) if more widely distributed to reviewers. Overall, I think that if scientists completely utilized the communicative abilities of the internet they could develop a system accepted by the entire world.
Main References:
Pisani, Elizabeth (2011) ‘Medical science will benefit from the research of crowds’, The Guardian, available online at, < http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/11/medical-research-data-sharing >
Schmidt, Gavin (2011) ‘From Blog to Science’, RealClimate, available online at < http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/from-blog-to-science/ >
Seed (2011) ‘On Science Transfer’, Seed, available online at < http://seedmagazine.com/content/print/on_science_transfer >
Thursday 16 May 2013
Thursday 2 May 2013
Week 8 (Data/Transversally)
Before I start this blog, I just want to first say that my view of politics in general, and especially Australian politics, is one of not quite disgust or hatred but something close to both of them. This will probably show throughout my blog as I have a somewhat bleak and cynical view of how the government and people in power are "helping" the country.
The main topics for this week surrounding old and new media in politics, I find, aligns with my views as stated above. The first article "Against Transparency" by Lessig really outlined why I personally feel that the politics involved with people in power are almost completely untrustworthy and without an ulterior motive. Just one of the many examples Lessig gives, where he states "For more than three decades we have known the names of everyone who gives significant amounts to a federal campaign. Or at least we have "known" them". He continues "to this day, practical matters work against practical access.", furthering this with the example of the Senate's (U.S.) way of reporting this to the FEC through print, then electronically and then print again. What I'm trying to get at is that when looking at the government closely, which is already overly difficult, they seem to make a number of overly stringent rules for redundant areas completely halting any attempts at efficiency as well as the numerous signs pointing to corruption making it difficult to believe anything they say or reveal to us as truth.
On to Lessig's main point in the article against transparency (sorry but lame pun intended), he questions whether we truly want to see what lurks behind the shadows of politics, and "do we really want the world that they righteously envisage?". His example of the "climate bill" where committee members who voted yes received an average of about ten times as much as those who voted no, highlights the nature of those that govern us. The modern government has seen a dramatic change with the introduction of transparency laws, made easier with the current advancement of networking technologies like the internet. There have been numerous accusations, inquiries and "political deaths" throughout the course of increased transparency, and it remains to be seen whether the "transparency movement" will truly result in a 'better' government as well as a cleaner one.
Main References:
Lessig, Lawrence (2010) ‘Against Transparency: The perils of openness in government.’, available online at < http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,0 >
Styles, Catherine (2009) “A Government 2.0 idea – first, make all the functions visible’, available online at < http://catherinestyles.com/2009/06/28/a-government-2-0-idea/ >
The main topics for this week surrounding old and new media in politics, I find, aligns with my views as stated above. The first article "Against Transparency" by Lessig really outlined why I personally feel that the politics involved with people in power are almost completely untrustworthy and without an ulterior motive. Just one of the many examples Lessig gives, where he states "For more than three decades we have known the names of everyone who gives significant amounts to a federal campaign. Or at least we have "known" them". He continues "to this day, practical matters work against practical access.", furthering this with the example of the Senate's (U.S.) way of reporting this to the FEC through print, then electronically and then print again. What I'm trying to get at is that when looking at the government closely, which is already overly difficult, they seem to make a number of overly stringent rules for redundant areas completely halting any attempts at efficiency as well as the numerous signs pointing to corruption making it difficult to believe anything they say or reveal to us as truth.
On to Lessig's main point in the article against transparency (sorry but lame pun intended), he questions whether we truly want to see what lurks behind the shadows of politics, and "do we really want the world that they righteously envisage?". His example of the "climate bill" where committee members who voted yes received an average of about ten times as much as those who voted no, highlights the nature of those that govern us. The modern government has seen a dramatic change with the introduction of transparency laws, made easier with the current advancement of networking technologies like the internet. There have been numerous accusations, inquiries and "political deaths" throughout the course of increased transparency, and it remains to be seen whether the "transparency movement" will truly result in a 'better' government as well as a cleaner one.
Main References:
Lessig, Lawrence (2010) ‘Against Transparency: The perils of openness in government.’, available online at < http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,0 >
Styles, Catherine (2009) “A Government 2.0 idea – first, make all the functions visible’, available online at < http://catherinestyles.com/2009/06/28/a-government-2-0-idea/ >
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)