Science always was, and always will be, a subject that promotes and provokes debate. The quest for knowledge and the evaluation of ideas and theories forms the basis of the subject. It seems then that Web 2.0 tools are a natural fit in our wired world to advance debate, and there is a growing body of evidence to confirm that academia is taking advantage of these tools to extend the debate to a wider audience. In the commercial world, however, confidentiality, security and IP protection tend to put some restrictions on open debate, so the discussions are more likely to take place behind the firewall.
Nevertheless, as much as technology can provide the tools to support debate and the sharing of scientific knowledge, there remains an underlying concern about the ‘digital divide between scientists‘. This is a phrase used by Martin Fenner in his blog on scientific publishing in the internet age on Nature Network. It’s pretty much the same concern as we have expressed here on The Integrated Lab about using laboratory systems. Martin’s blog makes interesting reading, not only in articulating the problem and suggesting a few potential solutions, but also from the numerous comments that leave me thinking there’s still a very long way to go before we can stop worrying about the technology and get on with the science. So, just how big is the problem in the commercial world, how much damage is it doing, is it improving, or do we have to wait 10-20 years until we are all digital natives?
The article “The Digital Divide Between Scientists” has a good idea in suggesting that we come up with examples behind how to do various tasks. The main problem with any new set of tools is that the tools aren’t what’s important, but getting the work done. If a tool is ideal for a specific task and is better than the old tools, the reasons why must be made clear. For example, if a wiki is a great way to modify, maintain, and approve SOPs, it becomes clear only if an example is given.
We are really picking on scientists, here, but I wouldn’t say that I know many non-scientists (outside of the some of the serious software houses) that are rushing to use some of these tools at work, either.
As usual, everyone is too busy doing their work and “doing more with less” to be excited about changing what they’re doing because, as we all know, some of these corporpate initiatives to use new tools are poorly thought-through and, if this is the case, the initiative will eventually die. As such, it often seems prudent to wait and see if it dies and if the company is really serious about it before spending a lot of valuable time learning something that might not stay around.
In the end, it’s not about the technology and tools. It’s the same problem we’ve discussed for years regarding why people do or do not jump on new technology. Now, we’ve got a new set of tools to focus on, but the problem remains the same.