Science blogging conf.: Ethics, please

Written byIvan Oransky

| 2 min read

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 linkurl:Janet Stemwedel, ;http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/ that I went to today at the linkurl:North Carolina Science Blogging Conference. ;http://wiki.scienceblogging.com/scienceblogging/ It's the second such conference, and I was stimulated enough by last year's to come back. (I even got linkurl:this story;http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/52955/ 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 linkurl:Cyberjournalist.net. ;http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/000215.php Others might like linkurl:O'Reilly's draft. ;http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html 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 linkurl:Statement of Principles;http://www.healthjournalism.org/secondarypage-details.php?id=56 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 linkurl:here;http://wiki.scienceblogging.com/scienceblogging/show/Science+blogging+ethics or by posting a comment on this blog. UPDATE (Jan. 21, 1:45 p.m. EST): The wiki I suggested has started, visit it linkurl:here. ;http://wiki.scienceblogging.com/scienceblogging/show/Science+Blogging+Ethics+Wiki

Science blogging conf.: Ethics, please

The Scientist ARCHIVES

Become a Member of

Meet the Author

Ivan Oransky

Related Research Resources

A Stubborn Gene, a Failed Experiment, and a New Path

Research Resources

Podcasts

Webinars

Videos

Infographics

eBooks

Advancing Drug Discovery with Complex Human In Vitro Models

Redefining Immunology Through Advanced Technologies

Ensuring Regulatory Compliance in AAV Manufacturing with Analytical Ultracentrifugation

Maximizing Cancer Research Model Systems

Products

Product News

Sino Biological Pioneers Life Sciences Innovation with High-Quality Bioreagents on Inside Business Today with Bill and Guiliana Rancic

Sino Biological Expands Research Reagent Portfolio to Support Global Nipah Virus Vaccine and Diagnostic Development

Beckman Coulter Life Sciences Partners with Automata to Accelerate AI-Ready Laboratory Automation

Refeyn named in the Sunday Times 100 Tech list of the UK’s fastest-growing technology companies