News:
Science blogging conf.: Ethics, please
Posted by Ivan Oransky
[Entry posted at 19th January 2008 06:51 PM GMT]
Comment on this news story   
Do science bloggers need a code of ethics? Should they disclose conflicts of interest? Moderate comments? Protect anonymous colleagues?

Those were some of the questions raised at the first session, led by Janet Stemwedel, that I went to today at the North Carolina Science Blogging Conference. It's the second such conference, and I was stimulated enough by last year's to come back. (I even got this story out of it.) I'll post a few more items from it throughout the day.

What struck me about the discussion of science blogging ethics was that it seemed to keep coming back to what we journalists do well or badly, compared to how bloggers do it. I mentioned that, and Stemwedel's response was telling: Consider that science journalists are parents, and science bloggers are teenagers. The bloggers don't really want to be like their parents, but they know journalists have been at this for a while and might have something to offer as they make their way.

Other blogging communities have considered the ethics code question, and have come up with various responses -- many hostile. It of course depends on what communities bloggers come from. Are they journalists? In that case, maybe they should follow these draft codes at Cyberjournalist.net. Others might like O'Reilly's draft.

What I suggested was a science blogging ethics code wiki. That's quite a mouthful, I realize, but the idea was met with enough enthusiasm that Stemwedel said she would figure out how to make it happen somewhere on the conference site -- itself a wiki. Someone else suggested that rather than think about this as a code of ethics, bloggers should consider it a description of best practices. That makes perfect sense to me -- it's similar to what Gary Schwitzer, my colleague at the Association of Health Care Journalists, used in our Statement of Principles when our organization was grappling with similar issues -- so I'd consider that the first non-electronic entry on the wiki.

You can join the discussion here or by posting a comment on this blog.

UPDATE (Jan. 21, 1:45 p.m. EST): The wiki I suggested has started, visit it here.

For FREE access to this news story and more, you must register.

Not yet registered? Get free access
 

The article you are attempting to read is only available to registered users of The Scientist. Registration is FREE and only takes a few seconds.

 
 

Email

Password

> Forgot Password?
> FAQ
> Subscribe

 
Not yet registered? Get free access
 

Create your MyScientist account and access all of The Scientist's free content, tools and life science email newsletters, including:

 

> The current month’s print issue

> Daily & Bi-weekly e-mail newsletters

> Newsblogs with breaking headlines

> The Scientist Community

> Exclusive web extras

> The Scientist Careers

 

Premium content from The Scientist Archive, a comprehensive resource of over 22 years of past life science coverage, is available only by subscription. Subscribe today and get unlimited access

 

 
LATEST NEWS