Science 2.0 has become rather ubiquitous in the science community, with articles upcoming in Science and Scientific American, and I am happy about that.   It's a trademark but that is not designed to be a cudgel to beat people over the head - more to prevent companies from using a popular term like Science 2.0 to line their pockets.

To keep an eye out for the companies trying to exploit it for their gain I often take a look at who is using the term so I thought it would be a good community effort to highlight the people who use it in a positive way as well.   I'll update it from time-to-time though nowhere near as often as I might like.

The Open Science Foundation has a section on Science Communication which reads "a subject is comprised of public understanding of science and scientific literacy, overlapping with the history of science, all things Science 2.0, Open Science, and myriad other areas." So they don't lump them all together as one thing.   They don't have many areas yet so add any here you may like.  They do list an article from Galaxy Zoo, which I regard as Science 2.0, though they may consider themselves 'citizen science' or even just smart usage of people with free time.

A group calling itself International Institute of Informatics and Systemics (IIIS) (based in Venezuela so we'll have to give them a break) is a conference they are calling International Symposium on Science 2.0 and Expansion of Science: S2ES but they don't seem to have any Science 2.0 people there.   Still, they licensed use of the name from us so let's wish them well.

Seed Magazine reprints Adrienne Burke's Conversations with seven Science 2.0 pioneers from a while back - relevant, since most would agree Adam Bly is a Science 2.0 pioneer.  Many of the other inclusions are still odd.

Conference on Science Communication 2.0 held at the University of Girona - free, so they get some love on the Science 2.0 Watch page.   Most fascinating - a discussion on Science  2.0.1,whatever that might be.

Science online: some considerations and links - ""Science 2.0" is a concept introduced recently to describe the next wave of science."  Geologically recent, maybe, but 8 years is not recent on the Internet.  I think it's more the case that a science worldwide community has become the norm rather than the exception so more people are hearing about it.

I just noticed a somewhat flawed Wikipedia entry on Science 2.0 - so I wrote a few people asking if they want to help.

Why it's Hard to Debate the Scientifically Illiterate - the answer to combating the intentionally and persistently scientifically illiterate?  Don't, but Science 2.0 gets a mention for trying.

OpenSciNY Open Notebook Science - Jean-Claude Bradley, as big an advocate of open science as anyone and a Science 2.0 favorite.

Science and the Web 2.0: A blog on Science 2.0 research did Barcamp Graz 2010 – A weekend in review.

Web 2.0, Science 2.0 and Government 2.0 - harkens back to Scientific American's somewhat misguided effort to make Science 2.0 into just open access.

ResearchGate has a section of Publication 2.0 and Science 2.0 - they recognize Science 2.0 is not just a new way to publish, a definition of Old Media prefers because then they control the discussion by controlling Democrat Conyers of Michigan and blocking open access. 

Rafe Furst says what's missing from Science 2.0 is complex systems theory.  Me likey!

Alex at The Emergent Fool goes a step further and says ontology and language are a necessary centerpiece and uses The Incommensurability of Scientific Theories as a waypoint.

Conversations with seven Science 2.0 pioneers - the article includes few actual Science 2.0 pioneers, but instead big corporate media people the writer has heard of.   That's like writing about 7 rock&roll pioneers and then interviewing the Jonas Brothers.   Maybe someone should explain what the word 'pioneer' means along with 'Science 2.0'.

The Real-time Web and Characteristics of New Media (the intersection of Science 2.0 and Medicine 2.0 - though I can't see evidence that Medicine 2.0 has the same cachet just yet)

Social Media Help Generate Science 2.0 (not actually about Science 2.0, but instead about the wave of startups wanting to show scientists how to share data)

Science 2.0 in Poland – getting popular, recognized as important 

Science 2.0 The birth of the Citizen Scientist (more on data intensive science, and citizen scientists are not new - if anything, Big Government Science killed them long ago)

Mendeley ‘the Last.fm of Research’ Hits New Heights (an article on data sharing startup Mendeley - my only irk; "Mendeley have used this to birth ’science 2.0′."   Journalists.  Sheesh.)

Semester 3 Week 8: Education 2.0 ('what does Science 2.0 mean?')

The Furor Over Futurity and the Future of Science Journalism: A Talk With Jenny Leonard

Science 2.0 -- Is Open Access Science the Future?  It is, of course, if we have anything to say about it, but hopefully Science 2.0 remains more than open access.   Efforts are on to 'jargonize' it (what does Web 2.0 mean today?  Anything you want) and we have to hope that the people doing so are outnumbered by the ones who would like to make a difference.

Reflections on Science 2.0 from a distance - Part I (with links to 2 and 3)

Social Networking Scientists and Researchers - ResearchGate.net data sharing article.  

Science 2.0 workshop - Science 2.0 is not just a way to share data.   I guess I can keep pointing out that sharing data is not actual collaboration.



NIH Funds a Social Network for Scientists — Is It Likely to Succeed?   Yes, the NIH is spending $12 million to create a social network for scientists that I created in my den for free.   This is why the government should not be more involved in science, despite what scientists with fear of the unknown think about the private sector.

Science enters the age of Web 2.0  The BBC discovers Science 2.0 in October of 2009.   Yayyy old media.

Scientists built the web. Do they love web 2.0? - seeks to understand why more scientists don't embrace the web, though it seems obvious:  for the same reason car companies don't put their designs on the web or anyone else with competitors.

What I don't get is where they got the people to interview:  

"Diana Rhoten, PhD, a School of Education alum and a program director at the Social Science Research Council. Rhoten was a program manager at the National Science Foundation’s Office of Cyberinfrastructure when many of the first Science 2.0 applications were being built. "

What does that even mean?  The NSF is taking credit for Science 2.0?

The "Science 2.0 sample pack: Web 2.0 applications tailored for the scientific community",  includes a few things that sound nifty, though I never heard of them before.   And then there is Nature Networks, which is a Science 2.0 effort, though it is owned, filtered, controlled and micromanaged by a multi-billion dollar publishing company, which feels pretty Science 1.0.

Science 2.0: things that work and things that don’t (we're not mentioned, though we're one of the things that work the best, by any measure, be it traffic, participation or financial success)

Ben Shneiderman, Professor of Computer Science at the University of Maryland, either dances about architecture or discusses his vision of what Science 2.0 is.


This isn't Science, it's a Shampoo Advert (Inventing "Science 2.0" in Science) is mostly a rant about Science, the magazine, not being in love with Science 2.0.  Why would they be? They make a lot of money doing it their way. 

Science 2.0, Science, March 7, 2008 "It is time for researchers in science to take network collaboration to the next phase and reap the potential intellectual and societal payoffs."   I suppose so but we have to be careful about meaningless platitudes being considered an actual definition.