Comments on: Science Online Died. Why?

By: Amy Alkon

Amy Alkon — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:46:31 +0000

This paragraph of yours is the first fair rendering of the Bora situation I have seen. How great that you aren’t one of the dittoheads. If only someone would do a reported story on this — all that’s been out there have been the screeching witch-hunters.

“Bora was accused, tried, and convicted of inappropriate behavior and forced to resign. The nature of that inappropriate behavior is up in the air, in the sense that people have labeled it with various legally meaningful terms that don’t actually apply, questions have been raised in the same venue as some of the accusations about the veracity of those accusations, and the entire exercise was riddled with posturing, hard feelings, look-at-me-too antics, and a certain amount of bullying, variously coming from some of the dramatic protagonists working from many different angles. There is a Standard Line that goes with the Bora Saga, and within a few weeks of the breaking of that story (almost one year ago, I believe) every one knew the Standard Line. At that point you eitherr towed it faithfully, objected to it anonymously, because questioning it openly felt like it would lead to your own trial and conviction.”

By: G

Tue, 14 Oct 2014 02:30:25 +0000

For those who haven’t seen it, here’s P.Z. Meyers’ take on the subject, including the letter that went out from the board announcing the disbanding of the organization:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/10/10/whoascienceonline-has-gone-and-died/

Greg, I assume you’ve seen that (and found that the board’s explanation isn’t entirely satisfactory) but others may not have.

I’d say that the very fact that there were “personal issues” afoot makes it clear that, in this day & age, people who are the public faces of science organizations have to be absolutely impeccable, with the self-discipline of Marines.

By: Curious Wavefunction

Curious Wavefunction — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 00:20:21 +0000

Having lived for six years in Atlanta I would say it wasn’t a bad choice. Convenient public transportation to and from the airport to the hotel, the presence of Emory University and Georgia Tech and slightly better weather than Raleigh during that time of the year would have been pluses. Plus there are plenty of things to do in that part of town, including easy walking-distance access to bars, restaurants and shopping. Unfortunately a lot of people’s impressions of Atlanta are colored by never visiting the nicer parts of town, of which there are quite a few.

By: Shecky R

Shecky R — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:32:25 +0000

I don’t want to touch on all the ‘people’ factors that may have affected this outcome, but I do think you’re right that the move to Atlanta was significant. The Raleigh-area had a history with the conference and a loyal set of supporters/volunteers. Among my friends who travel, Atlanta is one of their LEAST favorite metropolitan destinations. If it had to move there were probably some better city choices.
Anyway, it’s good to see most people writing are recalling the good times. The conference changed lives, changed science communication, and it was a phenomena with a good run. All the organizers ought be proud of what they accomplished!

By: Andrew Maynard

Andrew Maynard — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:45:45 +0000

Thanks for this Greg – I was similarly struck by the complacency of “sad, but let’s remember the great times” responses. I think you’re right that, with most other meetings of this size and influence, the key stakeholders would want to know what was going on. This looks too much like people taking what they can from the organization, then moving on when the well’s dry – although I really hope that isn’t the case.

By: James Hrynyshyn

James Hrynyshyn — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:50:03 +0000

The demise of ScienceOnline leaves empty what used to be a vibrant niche. And niches have a tendency to be filled. I hope.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:29:26 +0000

Mike, thanks for your comment. What you said, about continued support (thank you for that!) is similar to what I’ve heard privately from elsewhere (not your organization).

By: Mike Spear

Mike Spear — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:49:53 +0000

I could offer some comments but a few random thoughts aren’t really going to inform the discussion a heck of a lot. However as we (Genome Alberta) have been a sponsor for a few years now and had already committed to sponsor this year I will offer this much.
As a non-profit research funding organization we can’t offer a lot of $$$ but we felt and still feel the whole area of science communications deserves attention, the conference was an excellent venue to discuss the challenges and highlight the successes, and it drew a broad enough audience in person and online to warrant support.
When the Bora incident blew up we never hesitated in our continued financial support. One person does not a conference make, and the actions of one doesn’t diminish the work of many. Sure we talked about it in the office but withdrawing support was never seriously considered.
We can’t afford to move this along on our own but we’ve already been in contact with a few scattered groups and individuals to see if there is a way to keep the content and the format moving along.
Thanks for raising the questions.

Mike

By: Mike Haubrich

Mike Haubrich — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 04:56:01 +0000

I am one who hopes it isn’t completely dead, just very ill, and that it will be revived because I had hoped to make it to at least one of them.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 02:07:51 +0000

Yes, it was great seeing you there!