Originally posted July 7, 2011
From the chemistry community.
“Who’s that,” you say.
*C H E M I S T R Y
July 07, 2011
Scientific American has announced the make-up of their new blogging network. Their announcement set off waves of congratulations through the blogosphere yesterday. This collection of wonderful writers, put together by Bora Zivkovicwill certainly rival some of the other, major, broadly-focused blogging networks (Wired Science, Discover Blogs, Scientopia, Guardian Science Blogs, PLoS Blogs, ScienceBlogs, and others).
While the excitement over this new network is justified (I already read many of the contributors blogs), I must say that I am disappointed at the very minimal number of chemists contributing to the site. Of the 35 independent contributors, only 3 have any ties to the world of chemistry. And, it is safe to say that chemistry certainly won’t be a primary focus of any of these three sites. Cassie Rodenberg, a former chemist whose blog will likely (my presumption) have the largest chemistry slant, will be writing on the chemistry, neurology, psychology and sociology of addiction. Michelle Clement has a masters in organismal biology and currently works as a technical editor for the American Chemical Society. Her blog, Crude Matter, will mostly cover all the “stuff”, i.e. solids/liquids/gasses that animals, via their bodily functions, produce. Finally, Janet Stemwedel, who holds PhDs in both chemistry and philosophy, will mainly cover the philosophical, ethical and sociological ramifications of doing science. Aside from these instances, some of the other bloggers are molecular biologists or have topics that may require them to discuss specific chemicals, proteins, DNA and their interactions on a molecular level. Still, I don’t see many voices here who are willing to talk about the art of chemistry in a way that is fitting for this wonderful discipline.
Sour Grapes
After the Scientific American Blogs announcement, David Kroll, using his CENblog – Terra Sigillata, published his congratulations and thoughts on how this new blogging network might affect readership of the blogging network at Chemical and Engineering News (cenblog.org). His thesis is that the new network wouldn’t reduce the readership of CENblogs because, while CENblogs is geared towards an audience made up of chemists, the Scientific American network wouldn’t be delving very deeply into the world of chemistry. Though David may be right in this respect, I had a very different concern:
Why are there no chemistry-focused blogs on the new Scientific American network? Chemistry as a whole would certainly benefit from having more voices in the “popular science” discussion. Why is it that chemistry gets short-changed when so many non-scientists enjoy reading about biology, physics, psychology, anthropology and sociology? Why doesn’t Scientific American have any chemistry-themed blogs on its roster?
Eventually (actually, it was surprisingly quickly), Bora partly answered my question in the comment thread on David’s post:
I did struggle about it. People with chemistry background whose blogs I like (and think they fit in my network vision) tend not to blog about chemistry much. Or are taken by other networks, or unwilling to join one. But majority of chemistry bloggers write for each other, very inside baseball I cannot understand, thus not really fitting my vision (or SciAm focus on broad audiences).But with two bloggers with background, and one with foreground (plus some of our editors), I hope we can cover chemistry sufficiently, at least for the time being. If a fantastic new chemistry bloggers emerges, please let me know…
I understand that some of the chemistry-themed bloggers that Bora approached might not want to join the Scientific American network. And I’m certainly not going to argue with his ability to know how to put a successful blogging network together. And I have no business questioning his vision of the types of bloggers who make up a good network. (The man certainly knows his stuff.) However, I still think that Scientific American is failing themselves and their readership by not having any chemistry-themed blogs on their site. If chemistry is as important as we (speaking for chemists here) know it to be, why is there this “barrier” for chemistry in popular blogging?
Bora gives some hints for why this “barrier” might exist for him (from his earlier comment):
“People with chemistry background whose blogs I like (and think they fit in my network vision) tend not to blog about chemistry much.”
These probably include the bloggers whom he has added to the Scientific American network. I wouldn’t claim to understand what his vision for a successful network is and certainly won’t argue his ability to put one together. But I might presume from this statement that there aren’t many chemistry-themed blogs that he enjoys reading.
“Or are taken by other networks or unwilling to join one.”
There are very successful and popular chemistry blogs out there right now. Of course, Derek Lowe’s In the Pipeline certainly has the largest readership of any chemistry-themed blog, and Derek is probably doing just fine in the Corante network. David Kroll has had great success writing (previously) at Scienceblogs and currently at PLoS and CENblogs. And, again, I would imagine he’s pretty happy where he is. Of course I also need to mention the wonderful author/journalist/professor, Deborah Blum who blogs about poisons for PLoS. Presumably, these are chemistry’s top 3 bloggers who, from a both a writing and a traffic point of view, would be attractive to the network Bora is building. Outside of these three big-guns, the highest traffic folks (both sets of which are top notch!) are probably Paul at ChemBark and the Chemistry Blog crew. And of course I need to mention all of the other wonderful writers at CENblogs as well (Lauren Wolf, Lisa Jarvis, Carmen Drahl, Sarah Everts, Jyllian Kemsley, Glen Ernst, Christine Herman, and others). Most of the writing on that site isn’t ultimately as technically driven as it might seem on first glance. I think that there are lots of science blog readers who would enjoy perusing the blogging network of our trade magazine. Perhaps, though, the type of writing the Bora is envisioning is closer to that being done by Ash at The Curious Wavefunction who takes a very engaging and philosophical view of chemistry research or Sharon at icanhasscience who has done a marvelous job translating chemistry terms and unravelling the Brazillian Blowout hair-straightening scandal. If they weren’t in the cards, Bora could have asked Leigh who has an astounding way with words and whose turn-of-phrases always bring a smile to my face. Another fabulous choice would have been Ray Burks who has just educated all of us on the letter of the law as per the use of different chemical forms of cocaine. (Ray is also the head maven at the supremely hilarious The J.A.Y.F.K.) (Also … please forgive me if I don’t mention you, wonderful co-blogger, this is just an off-the-cuff list) (The next sentence was added after original posting. Had meant to put it in but forgot.) Another interesting choice would be Katherine Haxton whose “What am I” series really gets a person thinking about what is in the household products that they use. Again, I’m not sure what Bora was looking for or if he approached any of these people.
Bora goes on to say: “But majority of chemistry bloggers write for each other, very inside baseball I cannot understand, thus not really fitting my vision”
This is a valid argument … to a point. There are certainly some superb blogs that serve only the chemistry community. The most prominent of these is Chemjobber. And, of course there are several synthetic/technique-oriented blogs that most chemists would find to be most useful. But, I don’t think that the blogs I mentioned earlier are overly specialized. In fact, some specialization is OK, fascinating even. I don’t expect Christie Wilcox to take all of the biology out of her posts just because I’m not a biologist. And I don’t not read Kate Clancy because I don’t have any “lady-business” to attend to. I read them because I find their writing and their science interesting and because I want to learn more. As long as the science is described crisply and related in an interesting way, even chemistry can be entertaining. If Bora is saying that chemistry (as we have been presenting it to him) isn’t interesting, then we NEED to work on that. If Bora is saying he doesn’t want to know more of the details of chemistry, then we have a problem. (Bora’s enthusiasm for science is seemingly endless, and if HE doesn’t give two shakes about chemistry, then we’re all in trouble. Also, its a little unfair to him and certainly not accurate, but I’m projecting the interests of a very diverse set of audiences onto Bora and his comments.)
And, now seems a very ideal time to have another strong voice for chemistry placed in a prominent blogging network. As Carmen Drahl noted in her comments on David’s post:
There are lots of “big picture” chemistry issues that someone in the blogosphere could be writing about for SciAm– like how do we strike the right balance between incorporating nano-innovations into everything and making sure they’re safe, energy questions like building better batteries and the pros and cons of solar/wind/biofuel/what have you, even a voice of reason to explain what’s behind extreme coverage (from both extremes!) of things like bisphenol A or formaldehyde in hair straighteners.
And that only gets at part of it. I think that Scientific American is doing a disservice to their blogging readership by NOT having any chemistry focus. Each science, in their own way, explain our world in a unique way that the other sciences cannot. Neglecting a chemistry focus, precludes the type of complete coverage that I would expect from Scientific American. Also, it seems the current spate of “chemical-free” fun would precipitate the need for more prominent voices for chemistry.
Navel Gazing
I can complain all I want about chemists getting the short-shrift by the at-large science blogging community. But the real reason that our readerships aren’t as far-reaching as those of other disciplines is that we haven’t done a good enough job writing for non-chemists. I don’t precisely know why chemistry doesn’t fascinate more people? It certainly fascinates me. Perhaps hippos and monkeys are less abstract than water and polyurethane. Maybe supernovae and atom smashers are more awe-inspiring than 1,1′-Azobis(tetraazole) or palytoxin. I don’t know what the answer is to make chemistry more prominent with the non-scientist crowd. But, I do think that there are several things that chemists need to be pushing.
1) Keep at it. Chemists were pretty late to the blogging game. It takes time to build up a workable style and consistent readership. Derek Lowe has been able to amass a very large following. Part of that is due to his ability as a writer. Another part of that is due to the fact that he’s been blogging for so long. His prominence shows that there is an audience for on-line chemistry. You just have to cultivate it.
2) There need to be more chemists blogging (or generally more people blogging about chemistry). Prof-like Substanceasked, the other day, what is keeping science blog readers from blogging about science. One of the comments noted that they didn’t think that they had much to add to the mix. In the case of chemistry, I would say that this sort of statement is inaccurate.
3) Opposing what Bora said about “inside baseball”, I don’t think that writers should shy away from technical/in depth writing about chemistry. I do, however think that chemistry bloggers should really work on making their “technical” writing more accessible. It is entirely possible to write about chemistry in an approachable way. But, there is a reason why many people don’t: It’s difficult. I personally feel that this is one of the biggest issues facing chemistry. How can we talk about the beauty of a reaction mechanism without a) making people gloss over with boredom or b) seeming overly simplistic to the chemists in our audience. Its not an easy task. But this is something that we, as chemists, really, really, REALLY need to figure out.
Napoleon Complex?
OK. So maybe I’m feeling like a sore loser because I think that chemistry got left out of the “party”. I still think that chemists need to put more effort into making their research accessible. A big part of that can and should come through the chemistry blogging community. I don’t know what the right answer is. But, if we keep searching we’ll eventually converge on one of the multiple eigenvalues to this Hamiltonian … erm too technical … find the right tone (of which I am sure there are several) that resonates with the science-blog reading non-chemists out there.
-mrh