Science Online 2010, January 16, 2010

Medicine 2.0 and Science 2.0 where do they intersect?

Walter Jessen, Ph.D.http://www.walterjessen.com

- Highlight HEALTH http://www.highlighthealth.com

- Next Generation Science http://www.nextgenerationscience.com

Medicine 2.0 applications, services and tools are Web-based services for health care consumers, caregivers, patients, health professionals and biomedical researchers, that use Web 2.0 technologies as well as semantic web and virtual reality tools, to enable and facilitate specifically social networking, participation, apomediation, collaboration, and openness within and between these user groups.

Eysenbach G. Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res. 2008 Aug 25;10(3):e22.

What is Medicine 2.0?

Five themes emerge from Web 2.0 in health, healthcare, medicine and science

1. Social networking

2. Participation

3. Apomediation

4. Collaboration

5. Openness

‣How are these themes being applied in science?

‣What are the reasons some themes are better applied than others?

Session questions

Eysenbach G. Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res. 2008 Aug 25;10(3):e22.

Consumer/Patient

Biomedical ResearchersHealth Professionals

Medicine 2.0 map: main user groups of current applications

Science 2.0

Health 2.0

E-learning

Eysenbach G. Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res. 2008 Aug 25;10(3):e22.

Medicine 2.0

Science 2.0 map: main user groups of current services and applications

produce knowledgenavigate knowledge

consume/benefit knowledgePublic

ResearchersPublishers

Science 2.0

Session discussion

‣How can Science 2.0 be expanded to include other groups?

‣What are the social and cultural obstacles to widespread adoption of Science 2.0?- “Scientists are too busy.”- “Scientists aren’t social.”

‣Are there other themes?

Social Networking and Participation

‣ Stay current on new research

‣ Share and discuss ideas

Advantages

http://www.nextgenerationscience.comTopic: Science Social Networks

‣ Achieved critical mass because they’re not specific to science

‣ Features such as lists, rooms, pages and groups provide for specification:- The Life Scientists room on

FriendFeedhttp://friendfeed.com/the-life-scientists

- Bora’s Twitter list of Science Online 2010 participantshttp://twitter.com/BoraZ/scienceonline2010/

Social Networking and Participation

Session discussion:Social Networking and Participation

‣Why are some science social networks more successful than others? ‣ For researchers, what are the immediate benefits?‣What are the disadvantages?‣How do you integrate social networking into your

workflow?‣Where could there be improvement?

‣ Apomediaries can help users navigate the flood of information afforded by the Internet and digital media

‣ Mediation you experience when you:- read reviews on Netflix.com- notice several friends using

an application or resource‣ Publisher tools:

- Connotea (NPG)- 2collab (Elsevier)- CiteULike

(sponsored by Springer)

Apomediation

Collaboration

‣ The examples above focus on collaborative writing‣ What about finding collaborators or performing research?

Session discussion: Apomediation and Collaboration

‣Why are some science social networks more successful than others? ‣ For researchers, what are the immediate benefits?‣What are the disadvantages?‣How do you integrate social networking into your

workflow?‣Where could there be improvement?

Openness

‣Open Source Science means:- Open Source: the use of open and freely accessible software

tools for scientific research and collaboration.- Open Notebook: transparency in experimental design and

data management.- Open Data: public accessibility of scientific data, which

allows for distribution, reuse and derived works.- Open Access: public access to scholarly literature.

Session discussion:Openness

‣ Issues with open data (privacy, IP, patents)‣Can researchers truly be open with unpublished data?

“Much of the work presented at conferences and documented on posters is unpublished. In fact, the whole idea of a conference/poster is to share with other researchers current projects and data before it’s published. The intention isn’t to enable widespread distribution of the information, but rather controlled circulation and localized discussion. “ From: Unpublished Data, No Pictures Please

Session discussion:Openness

Presentation rights:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24801682@N08/3662760870/

Session discussion:Openness

‣Can researchers truly be open with unpublished data?

Dr Rex Chisolm, Chair of the ASCB Public Information Committee (and Dean for Research at Northwestern University):

“The real goal is to limit specific tweeting of prepublication data, not the general concepts, the enthusiasm (or not) for an idea heard at the meeting, or comments about the meeting itself.”

From: Tweeting expressly prohibited at American Society of Cell Biology annual meeting

Medicine 2.0 Conferences

‣ 2010 in Maastricht, Netherlands

‣ Spring 2011: Barcelona, Spain

‣ Fall 2011: Stanford University