How can scientists use social media?

Posted on February 10, 2014 | 27 Comments

This video will mainly interest scientists who are interested in social media and its use in networking (blogging, Facebook, Twitter, etc). Scientist took a while to accept this new media, and many are still suspicious or reluctant to use it. But at least the media is being discussed and considered these days.

This is a Google Hangout video of a discussion by 5 US scientists. it brought home to me that different people use these media for different purposes and in different ways. As a retired scientist my use could be very different to the way a working scientist uses it. And scientists involve in policy issues, or science communication, will use it differently to those involved in teaching and/or research.

Credit: UCS Science Network: Tip of the Week | Union of Concerned Scientists.

This entry was posted in blogging, SciBlogs, science, Science and Society and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 responses to “How can scientists use social media?”

  1. Pingback: The Daily Blog Watch – 10/11 February 2014 « The Daily Blog

  2. Andy | February 11, 2014 at 1:37 pm |

    Michael Mann is very well versed in the use of social media as he often uses it to spread the word about #denial and #agwmisinformers and uses it to tell us about his pending legal actions

    In between twitter, Facebook and lawsuits, how does he get any time for #science?

    Like

  3. Ken | February 11, 2014 at 3:59 pm |

    Yes, Andy, he was reluctantly forced into this activism by the disgusting attacks on him. But he is doing a bloody good job, isn’t he?

    Like

  4. Andy | February 11, 2014 at 4:12 pm |

    Yes, he is #furiously #tweeting about his upcoming #courtcase with Mark Steyn

    Like

  5. Ken | February 11, 2014 at 4:18 pm |

    And so he should.

    The defendants are running scared and trying to prevent the case proceeding, unsuccessfully. You can understand why the deniers are quiet about it – especially in New Zealand after their own fiasco in the High Court

    Like

  6. Cedric Katesby | February 11, 2014 at 7:21 pm |

    Surely, climate deniers would welcome a chance to have yet another day in court?
    There, squarely in front of a judge, with lawyers on both sides and all the time in the world to prepare evidence and bring in their own expert witnesses.
    If I accused someone of fraud or being up to no good, that’s where I’d want them.
    Hmm.

    Like

  7. Richard Christie | February 11, 2014 at 7:56 pm |

    What’s with the hashtags Andy?

    Like

  8. Andy | February 11, 2014 at 8:02 pm |

    Mann is into the #hashtags when he furiously tweets about #agw #denial

    Like

  9. Richard Christie | February 11, 2014 at 8:03 pm |

    Daniel Ryan and Making Sense of Fluoride“‘ utilise facebook well.

    I’m not sure of the connection, if any, that Ryan has with the MSoF.

    Like

  10. Ken | February 11, 2014 at 8:07 pm |

    Hashtags are used normally by sensible people on Twitter – first time I have seen them used in blog comments though.

    Daniel is one of the moderators at MSOF. He seems to be a computer/programming whiz.

    Like

  11. Richard Christie | February 11, 2014 at 8:23 pm |

    Hashtags are used normally by sensible people on Twitter

    Why? I don’t bother with Twitter. Every time I have been directed there it has appeared to me to be full of superficial drivel.

    Like

  12. Andy | February 11, 2014 at 8:26 pm |

    Richard, I agree. Twitter is hopeless.
    Or maybe I am too old

    Like

  13. Ken | February 11, 2014 at 8:34 pm |

    It is full of superficial drivel and misleading claims. As is Facebook and the blogosphere. And the 140 character limit encourage that.

    The hashtags allow filtering and searching. Hence their use. For example I found it interesting to follow the seminar announcing the confirmation of the Higgs field and interact with one of the co-leaders of the Greens at the same time on the issue.

    Great for Soyuz launches and landings, etc.

    It is just another tool which can be useful if used sensibly.

    Like

  14. Richard Christie | February 12, 2014 at 10:06 pm |

    There’s a heap of fun to be had at TDB of recent.
    An excellent guest blog by Ken and a post by Green Party Gareth Hughs has attracted an AGW uber crank who makes Andy look reasonable by comparison.

    Like

  15. Richard Christie | February 12, 2014 at 10:11 pm |

    NB the moderation in place at TDB can cause irritating delays in the comments appearing.

    Like

  16. Andy | February 13, 2014 at 7:22 am |

    Reasonable? I feel hurt now 😦

    Like

  17. Cedric Katesby | February 13, 2014 at 8:42 am |

    …AGW uber crank….

    He even fell for the “32,000 scientists” PRATT.
    Low hanging fruit.

    Like

  18. Andy | February 13, 2014 at 9:35 am |

    It’s a shame that the thread at TDB got diverted into these pointless AGW “discussions”. There are a lot of issues around deep sea drilling in NZ of more relevance

    Like

  19. Richard Christie | February 14, 2014 at 12:29 pm |

    He even fell for the “32,000 scientists” PRATT.
    Low hanging fruit.

    (S)He’s plainly an idiot but is pushing the NIPCC as a credible scientific body, and I think s/he truly believes it. Personally I haven’t so far come across anybody so naive as to do so.
    Almost certainly the NIPCC was designed to become the latest in the deniersphere arsenal of attack on the scientific community, the IPCC , and will indeed become so, despite inevitable qualification as a PRATT.

    I haven;t researched the NIPCC myself but it would be nice to know of a resource that dissects this organisation and exposes it to a little sanitising sunlight.

    Like

  21. Richard Christie | February 14, 2014 at 3:07 pm |

    No thanks, maybe I should have made it clear I’d like a credible resource.

    Like

  22. Andy | February 14, 2014 at 3:19 pm |

    You asked about the NIPCC and the link I provided gave information about the NIPCC

    The NIPCC is connected with Heartland Institute and has input from Bob Carter and Fred Singer. You can find this information out in the non-credible link I provided.
    Alternatively, you can find a similar “credible” resource which will tell you the same thing.

    Perhaps “The Guardian” might be preferable?

    Like

  23. Cedric Katesby | February 14, 2014 at 8:53 pm |

    S)He’s plainly an idiot but is pushing the NIPCC as a credible scientific body, and I think s/he truly believes it.

    Scientific communities exist. They’re commonplace. Yet you can’t just make one up. Either the idiot genuinely don’t understand the facade of the lobby group or he knows perfectly well but is prepared to lie about it on the internet.
    Either way, it speaks volumes about his charcter.

    The scientific consensus is so complete that climate deniers have to invent such straws so they can then clutch at them.
    Shameful.

    Like

  24. Andy | February 15, 2014 at 3:42 pm |

    The nIPCC has also got scientists, professors of atmospheric physics, etc, working for it, so it is difficult for the general public to tell the difference

    Maybe they should wear special badges, like a yellow star, for example?

    Like

  25. Cedric Katesby | February 15, 2014 at 6:24 pm |

    Andy, do you believe that the nIPCC is a scientific community?

    Like

  26. ChristAtkinson | February 15, 2014 at 6:51 pm |

    I have never heard of the NIPPC until I goggled it after reading these posts 15min ago –

    On their “about page”

    “Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary”

    But this smacks of conspiracy…kinda like all the other ones maybe? As Cedric says regularly…just the labels change

    And I suppose like all the others…it wouldn’t be hard to uncover bucket loads of other red flags, or yellows stars – if yellow floats your boat

    Like

  27. Cedric Katesby | February 15, 2014 at 7:28 pm |

    From the same page…

    score of independent scientists from around the world began to share their research and ideas with Dr. Singer, as they continue to do. Some of these scientists have asked not to be named in NIPCC reports for fear of losing research grants and being blacklisted by professional journals.

    Comedy that writes itself.
    It’s incredible that people fall for this spooky-wooky conspiracy thinking nonsense.
    Name the research grants rejected. Expose the paper trails. List the journals that did the blacklisting and how they set about it.
    The nuts and bolts of the operation.
    Time’s a-wasting.

    The NIPCC continues its work today…

    Really, what work?

    …regularly reviewing the peer-reviewed scientific literature and archiving those reviews on this website. And, it will continue to produce major assessment reports….

    Reviewing, archiving and assessing?
    So…no actual science then.
    Hmm.

    NASA (for example) doesn’t just “review” and “archive” and “assess”. They actually get work done. Same goes for any other scientific community on the planet.
    A scientific community is not a knitting circle for old men.

    It lists 35 contributors and reviewers from 14 countries and presents in an appendix the names of 31,478 American scientists who have signed a petition saying….

    Oops. The dumb is deep.

    32000 Scientists

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.