[tt] "How scientists should communicate"

[Bryan Bishop]

http://scienceblogs.com/retrospectacle/2007/10/superhappydevcon_20_hints_at_h.php

Silicon Valley Hackfest Hints at How Laboratory Scientists Could 
Communicate

Category: Blatant Nerdery
Posted on: October 15, 2007 8:23 PM, by Aaron Rowe 


This past Saturday, dozens of computer programmers descended upon a 
mansion in Cupertino, California to enjoy massive troughs of Indian 
food, camaraderie, and 12 hours of working on a diverse array of 
projects alongside one another. 

I visited the event, called SuperHappyDevHouse 20, as an observer. It 
made me wonder: What if all scientists worked this way? 

Granted, it would be immensely difficult, and possibly dangerous, for a 
hundred chemists or biologists to bring all of their instruments to a 
suburban home and set up shop for the weekend. All scientists have 
conferences that they can attend. But I think that there is a point to 
be made here. 

Coders are accustomed to communicating with each other must faster than 
their laboratory-bound counterparts. Some Google employees told me how 
they are barraged each day with a phalanx of email. Countless message 
boards, IRC channels, and other sites allow isolated programmers to 
share with each other. And then we have this: a gathering with 
lightning talks and guys squeezed ten to a folding table sharing ideas 
as quickly as they can speak. Perhaps this allows their culture and 
projects to evolve more quickly as well. 

By comparison, there are few chemistry message boards, and only the open 
access journals like chemistry central include a comments thread 
alongside every peer-reviewed research paper, and conferences are dry, 
twice-a-year poster and powerpoint affairs.

It makes perfect sense that information technology for laboratory 
scientists would lag behind that which is at the disposal of career 
programmers, because the coders can make their own. But despite that 
understanding, I want more. I want lightning talks, and hack days, and 
zillions of active boards for biologists and chemists and physicists. 

Instead, I have absolutely no idea what goes on in the labs on either 
side of mine. I know what topics my neighbors are studying, but I don't 
see the nitty gritty details. Concrete walls separate us. 

Increasing the rate at which laboratory science evolves is a challenge 
for architects. Would researchers work more effectively in cavernous 
labs that allow them to interact more fluidly with hundreds rather than 
a handful of other scientists? Could a business profit from renting out 
a venue where scientists temporarily set up camp to show each other the 
latest techniques? While it may be impractical, it would seem far more 
colorful than simply meeting in a convention center and watching slide 
shows. 

Rare stories of organic chemists bringing insect pheromones or other 
oddities with them to conferences are the stuff of legend. 

There is a small silver lining to this cloud. Websites like the Journal 
of Visualized Experiments have sprung up to share the minutia of what 
goes on in labs -- allowing researchers from across the globe to 
reproduce complicated procedures with less difficulty. But still, there 
is something to be said for being there.