<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[A Blog Around The Clock]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://blog.coturnix.org]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Bora Zivkovic]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://blog.coturnix.org/author/coturnix/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Science 2.0 article in Scientific&nbsp;American]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>M. Mitchell Waldrop (author of the delightful book <a href="http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671872346/scienceandpol-20">Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos</a>) interviewed me and a bunch of others back in August about the changing ways of science communication.  I completely forgot about it, but was reminded yesterday when he e-mailed me to say that the draft of the article is now online on the Scientific American site: <a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-or-great-risk" target="_blank" title="">Science 2.0: Great New Tool, or Great Risk?</a><br />
The idea is that the draft will be improved by commentary by readers &#8211; and sure enough, there are already 19 comments there &#8211; before it goes to print in a future issue of the magazine.  I urge you strongly to go and add your 2 cents to the discussion &#8211; some good people are already there.<br />
As such things go (and I am completely not surprised any more by now), the interview lasted more than an hour during which I talked and talked and talked (those who know me are well aware of this annoying ability of mine) and in the end only one, completely non-profound sentence made it into the article.  Ah well, that&#8217;s life 😉<br />
Not to mention that <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/12/the_scientific_paper_past_pres.php" target="_blank" title="">my views on the topic</a> have <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/clock/open_science/" target="_blank" title="">somewhat evolved</a> since August.<br />
But the article is good and you can make it even better if you go and post <a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-or-great-risk" target="_blank" title="">some comments on it</a> before it goes to print.</p>
]]></html></oembed>