Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Medicine 2.0 and Science 2.0 – where do they intersect?

1.334 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Introduction and guidance for discussion of the Science Online 2010 session "Medicine 2.0 and Science 2.0 – where do they intersect?"

Veröffentlicht in: Gesundheit & Medizin, Technologie, Bildung
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

Medicine 2.0 and Science 2.0 – where do they intersect?

  1. 1. 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 Science Online 2010, January 16, 2010
  2. 2. What is Medicine 2.0? 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.
  3. 3. Five themes emerge from Web 2.0 in health, healthcare, medicine and science 1. Social networking Session questions 2. Participation ‣ How are these themes being applied in science? 3. Apomediation ‣ What are the reasons 4. Collaboration some themes are better applied than others? 5. Openness Eysenbach G. Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res. 2008 Aug 25;10(3):e22.
  4. 4. Medicine 2.0 map: main user groups of current applications Consumer/Patient Health 2.0 Medicine 2.0 E-learning Science 2.0 Health Professionals Biomedical Researchers Eysenbach G. Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res. 2008 Aug 25;10(3):e22.
  5. 5. Science 2.0 map: main user groups of current services and applications Public consume/benefit knowledge Science 2.0 navigate knowledge produce knowledge Publishers Researchers
  6. 6. 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?
  7. 7. Social Networking and Participation Advantages ‣ Stay current on new research ‣ Share and discuss ideas http://www.nextgenerationscience.com Topic: Science Social Networks
  8. 8. Social Networking and Participation ‣ 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 FriendFeed http://friendfeed.com/the-life-scientists - Bora’s Twitter list of Science Online 2010 participants http://twitter.com/BoraZ/ scienceonline2010/
  9. 9. 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?
  10. 10. Apomediation ‣ 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)
  11. 11. Collaboration ‣ The examples above focus on collaborative writing ‣ What about finding collaborators or performing research?
  12. 12. 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?
  13. 13. 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.
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. Session discussion: Openness Presentation rights: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24801682@N08/3662760870/
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. Medicine 2.0 Conferences ‣ 2010 in Maastricht, Netherlands ‣ Spring 2011: Barcelona, Spain ‣ Fall 2011: Stanford University

×