If all other fields can go 2.0, incorporating collaboration and social networking, it’s about time that science does too. In the bellwether journal Science this week, a computer scientist argues that many modern problems are resistant to traditional scientific inquiry.

The title of the post is a big misnomer as the paper does not say anything about the change in the Scientific Method, but about the change scientists go about their work (perhaps “methodology”?). Read the rambunctious comment thread.
The paper is here but you cannot read it because it is in Science so you have to pay, which you are not crazy to do. But I got the paper and read it. I cannot copy and paste the entire text without breaking some maddening copyright law or something, but it is within Fair Use to give you a few key quotes so you can start the discussion (under the fold).

Successful scientific collaboratories among
genomic researchers, engineering innovations
through open-source software, and
community-based participation in cultural
heritage projects are all early indicators of the
transformative nature of collaboration (5).
eBay, Amazon, and Netflix have already
reshaped consumer markets, while political
participation and citizen journalism are
beginning to change civil society. Patientcentered
medical information and secure
electronic health records are improving
health care while creating opportunities for
clinical research. MySpace and Facebook
encourage casual social networks, but they
may soon play more serious roles in facilitating
emergency/disaster response (6). Social
media platforms such as Wikipedia, flickr,
and YouTube are also stunning success stories
of Web-based contributions.

Science 1.0 will continue to be important,
but new kinds of science, which I call
Science 2.0, are needed to study
the integrated interdisciplinary
problems at the heart of sociotechnical
systems. Science 2.0
will be especially important to
meet the design challenges in
secure voting, global environmental
protection, energy sustainability,
and international development
among many others.

Science 1.0 heroes such as Galileo,
Newton, and Einstein produced key equations
that describe the relationships among gravity,
electricity, magnetism, and light. By contrast,
Science 2.0 leaders are studying trust, empathy,
responsibility, and privacy. The great
adventure for the next 400 years will be to
define, measure, and predict the interaction
among these variables so as to accelerate scientific
discovery, engineering innovation, ecommerce,
and education

Advancing Science 2.0 will require a shift
in priorities to promote integrative thinking
that combines computer science know-how
with social science sensitivity. Science 2.0
researchers who develop innovative theories,
hypothesis testing based on case study
research methods, and new predictive models
are likely to lead the way. The quest for empirical
validity will drive research beyond what
laboratory-based controlled studies can provide,
while replicability and generalizability
will be achieved with greater effort through
multiple case studies.

Science 1.0 remains vital, but this ambitious
vision of Science 2.0 will affect research
funding, educational practices, and evaluation
of research outcomes. Science funding
agencies will face resistance as they promote
a transformation that seeks to make a safe
space for Science 2.0. Scientific journal editorial
boards and conference program committees
are already shifting their attention to
new topics and opening their doors to new
scientific research methods. Pioneering educators
have begun changing their curricula,
focusing on collaboration strategies and
teaching new research methods. The innovators
are courageously taking on new challenges,
but they should be ready for the resistance
to novel ideas that has always been part
of science. In that way, Science 2.0 is part of a
great tradition.