Science was always going to be the industry that benefited most from media developments. Of course everyday society has benefited, with social media, multiplatform information sources and new technologies, however science is at the core of this. New media has enabled drastic improvements and leaps forward in the science front. This week’s readings have been an insightful way to view the way in which new media is contributing to society in a greater way other than Facebook.
Based on the readings, there seems to be a division going on in the world in regard to scientific publication. Open science, is the concept that has been discussed throughout this blog (more so that of the concept of an ‘open network’), however in the industry of science there are different implications of an open network, from sharing research to wandering away from the traditional form if print publication:
“Even worse, the paper-based status quo relies on strictly enforced barriers to public access that prevent the rapid dissemination of vital knowledge” (Wilbanks 2011).
“This system’s strength lies partly in its convenience and familiarity: everyone knows how this works, and knows where to go to try to publish or find things or see how many papers a research has produced. Major downsides include inefficiency and the fact that paywalls prevent more thorough distribution and availability to future scholars” (Dobbs 2012).
Although print publication is facing one of the most challenging times in its history, the argument between digital and print publication remains a strong point in the science industry; “This requires a new form of scientific inquiry, a turning of science’s lens of systematic inquiry back upon itself to achieve self-awareness, to chart its dynamic intricacies, and to anticipate its future” (Seed 2011).
Although not all new media is causing waves in the industry, in fact advancements never possible before have been happening because of this new technology/media. For eg Craig Venter and his creation of a synthetic life form, where the organism is “built” rather than evolved, creating a massive landmark not only in science but possible our future (Sample 2010).
Mammoth Cloning, enabled by expansions in science via new media and technology. Courtesy of YouTube.
- Dobbs, D, February 3rd 2012, ‘Is the Open Science revolution for real?’, Neuron Culture, Wired, accessed 5/05/2012 <http://www.diigo.com/bookmark/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fwiredscience%2F2012%2F02%2Fis-the-open-science-revolution-for-real?tab=people&uname=andersand>
- Sample, I 2010, ‘Craig Venter Creates Synthetic Life Form’, The Guardian May 2, accessed 4/05/2012 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form>
- Seed 2011, ‘On Science Transfer’, Seed, Seed Media Group, accessed 4/05/2012 <http://seedmagazine.com/content/print/on_science_transfer>
- TheCosmosNews, 14th March 2012, ‘S.Korean- Russian scientists bid to clone Wooly Mammoth’, YouTube, accessed 4/05/2012 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPwEdaWGaLs>
- Wilbanks, J 2011, ‘On Science Publishing’, Seed, Seed Media Group, accessed 5/05/2012 <http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/on_science_publishing>