Reuters Events | Pharma

Thought leadership and innovation for the Pharmaceutical Industry

BioCrowd (www.biocrowd.com)co-founder, Vincent Racaniello [1], and I were chatting the other day with Crowdvine [2] [1] http://www.biocrowd.com/profiles/18035 [2] http://www.crowdvine.com/

BioCrowd (www.biocrowd.com)co-founder, Vincent Racaniello, and I were chatting the other day with Crowdvines Tony Stubblebine (the guy who created the BioCrowd software platform) about the reluctance of scientists to embrace social media. Both Vincent and I, both scientists ourselves, posited that scientists are simply asocial or at the very least not comfortable engaging in social activities whether they be online or IRL. Tony, a self-anointed software geek, wasnt buying into to our argument and noted that even software geeks are social!

This prompted me to do a little research and I found a blog post written by Nachiket Vartak a blogger and doctoral student at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Physiology. While the blog post focused mainly on reasons why bioscientists wont use Twitter, I think that many of his observations can be used to generally describe the chilly relationship between many scientists and social media. Before you read on, I must inform you that I paraphrased and embellished some of Nachikets original ideas on the subject. That said, here are some of the reasons why bioscientists may not use social media.

1. The reputation of social networking sites
Many scientists disdain social networks because they believe that social networking sites and microblogging platforms like Twitter are nothing more than places to waste time. Those scientists who use social media usually do it in-between experiments and when planning activities which usually involve copious quantities of alcohol, for after laboratory hours fun. In other words, social media is for fun not for work. Also, many so-called serious scientists contend that real science discussions only happen on closed e-mailing lists or forums and not in the open on social networking sites.

2. The social activation barrier
According to Nachiket, the stereotype that scientists are asocial is well.....err...true! He asserts that many scientists feel more comfortable focusing on themselves (and their research) rather than interacting with others to learn what they have to say or what they may be thinking. And, many times, unless an individual can demonstrate that they are smart they probably arent worse listening to anyway. Finally, scientists train for years to become independent investigators. Not surprisingly, there is very little emphasis and importance placed on teamwork or social interactions with others scientists or lay people for that matter. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that many scientists arent particularly social or inclined to participate in extracurricular social activities.

3. Privacy aka secrecy
Science is a highly competitive endeavor and, in many cases, the discoveries that are made represent many years of sacrifice, blood, sweat and tears. With this in mind, nobody wants to be scooped or beat out by their competitors. Consequently, scientists are generally instructed to be very hush-hush when it comes to sharing any information or data that might give the competition a leg up in the competition. Any leak, large or small, could mean the difference between fame and failure and, perhaps more importantly, a successful career as a scientist.

In marked contrast, the success of social media is contingent upon its openness, sharing and transparency. Thus, as Nachiket aptly pointed out social media is antithetical to the very nature of science and scientists.

4. Legitimate channels of communication
The only acceptable and legitimate means of scientific communications are presentations at meetings and publications in peer reviewed journals. These forms of communication are the lifeblood of scientific community and critical to the success of all scientists. If you arent published, you have no credibility as a scientist. The scientific publishing and communication industry is big business and the rules of engagement in the industry have been well established and institutionalized. Unfortunately, social media threatens to destabilize the science publishing world both financially and philosophically and possibly change the way science information is communicated. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is little support for social media in scientific publishing world and the science community in general.

While the number of science blogs and podcasts continue to increase daily, scientific social networking sites continue to struggle. This is because the information flow in blogs and similar forms of social media can be easily monitored and controlled. This is not the case for social networking sites like BioCrowd and microblogging platforms like Twitter.
However, if scientists are truly asocial beings then none of the existing science social networking sites will gain traction and be successful. Call me crazy, but I think social networking is an ideal medium for scientists to exchange information, ideas and develop relationships that can help them jumpstart their careers!

To learn more about bioscientists and their relationship to social media please visit www.biojobblog.com and www.biocrowd.com!