Comments for Medical Museion

Comment on To give means to give something of yourself — holiday greetings from Medical Museion by R Cooter

R Cooter — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:21:00 +0000

attribution for the brilliant card should be attributed to the Bavarian artist Stefan Birkel.

Roger Cooter

Comment on 6229 by Louise Whiteley

Louise Whiteley — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:05:00 +0000

Peeking below the tip of the iceberg, this debate also seems to be questioning the responsibilities of all players involved – somewhat reminiscent of the ‘you can’t blame journalists for having news values that don’t match scientific values’, here we seem to be getting ‘you can’t blame publishing companies for having profit motives’… so who can we blame? Scientists for not making more noise? Or perhaps librarians…. Check out this post from Library Journal turning the call to arms onto librarians and library science research scholars: http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/02/opinion/barbara-fister/joining-the-movement-a-call-to-action-peer-to-peer-review/

“We have used our money as duct tape to hold a broken system together and protect our users from its long-term consequences. In shifting our resources from developing shareable long-term assets to buying and using up massive amounts of duct tape, we’ve abandoned future library users in order to keep our current clientele happy.”

Who doesn’t love a duct-tape based metaphor?!

Comment on Crowdsourcing experiments with scientific research? by Morten Bulow

Morten Bulow — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:30:00 +0000

Fun! One comparison, I can think of, is American science fiction writer Neal Stephenson’s project & appeal to use a kind of crowd-sourcing of ideas from science fiction writers into science. The basic idea is that this would produce more innovative science/technology. Here’s his talk:
http://www.wesolveforx.com/#t=t&n=9ef1be41

Comment on Crowdsourcing experiments with scientific research? by Louise Whiteley

Louise Whiteley — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:04:00 +0000

This is great, I’m not aware of anyone doing exactly the same combo in science – experiments in biohacking and Open Science seem more oriented toward giving people the tools to do-it-yourself, and lab blogging (see Rosie Redfield’s blog for example) seems geared toward opening up the process but for observation rather than participation.

I’m intrigued to see what kind of interactions develop through the crowd-funders forum, and on what level the users shape the game… I guess one possible distinction between a game and science experiment is that the former is better suited to allowing people to contribute diverse elements without needing to reach consensus – whereas for many experimental protocols this wouldn’t function. Though perhaps I’m being too superficial – I’m sure there are underlying principles in the game’s structure that don’t admit of multiplicity, and ways in which experimentation with lab experiments could…

Thinking about bringing this into the scientific context, I also wonder about the implied expertise of the ‘crowd’. If the crowd for a science experiment involved mainly science enthusiasts, scientists, and science students we might complain that it fails to engage ‘the public’, but I don’t have the same reaction to the idea of a crowd of committed gamers. I think one could argue that the science community itself is as much in need of the opportunity for creatively funded, free experimentation, even if it didn’t turn out to be general public, ‘citizen science’ as such.

Comment on Progress in medical science and technology? by Hleonhardt

Hleonhardt — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:43:00 +0000

Bioheart comment update..

Bioheart, Inc. http://www.bioheartinc.com
is on the final leg of their Phase II/III MARVEL study to bring the
Bioheart MyoCell (adult muscle derived stem cells) for treating advanced
heart failure to market. Bioheart believes its MyoCell composition is
the only one in advanced clinical trials with the ability to grow new
contractile muscle in true heart scar tissue. Last fall the American
Heart Journal published our Phase II/III part I results. Bioheart
MyoCell patients improved 91.7 meters in exercise capacity testing and
placebo patients on optimal CHF drugs declined -4 meters. We beat our
primary end point goal by more than 500%! 84% of Bioheart MyoCell
patients have improved and only 16% have worsened since clinical trials
began in May of 2001. In comparison in control patient groups not
treated with muscle derived stem cells over 69% of patients worsened.
We would like to discuss our results and product pipeline with you at
greater length. Bioheart has spun out a number of patented technologies
designed to feed Bioheart with royalties including the MyoStim Pacer http://www.myostimpacers.com.
The MyoStim pacer complements Bioheart MyoCell for advanced heart
failure treatment. Please call Howard Leonhardt, Founder and CTO at 310 310 2534.

Comment on Science Online pluses and minuses by Louise

Louise — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:40:00 +0000

Thanks for this Nina – I think your two minuses come up surprisingly often in science communication forums, and it would be fascinating to have a discussion on this topic next year (when I hope to be able to attend!). I also wonder *why* this is the case, for instance whether the coverage of social science or qualitative research falls under someone else’s beat, seems less interesting, or perhaps requires skills and frames that many trained in more ‘hard science’ communication are uncomfortable with. I’m sure readers of this blog will have lots of other proposals, would be interesting perhaps to canvas opinions on the 2013 Wiki?

I also wonder if a discussion about social science or public health communication would naturally help to break down the bad journalist / inarticulate scientist dichotomy, as the research itself is more likely to be engaged in communication with the ‘publics’ it studies…

Comment on Dear students: In this classroom you will have to have your mobiles turned ON by Nina Bjerglund

Nina Bjerglund — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:40:00 +0000

HI Anthony, thanks for sharing your example of how open blogging can be used in teaching students communication and documentation skills. Looks like an interesting approach.

Do you give them feedback on their open notebooks? And how have the students reacted to using them? I like the creative approach and that the students can select the platform which suits them best!

Again, thanks for sharing this example!

Nina

Comment on A look at Open Science by BSK

BSK — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:19:00 +0000

RT@
LibrarianGMIT:
New useful search engine that returns full PDF scientific articles not subject
to access fees: http://www.freefullpdf.com

Comment on Dear students: In this classroom you will have to have your mobiles turned ON by Blogging in the undergraduate science classroom | Center for Instructional Technology

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:35:32 +0000

[...] February 3, 2012: Nina Bjerglund Andersen from the University of Copenhagen has published what she learned and thought from this session. Andrea NovickiAndrea helps faculty use technology effectively and efficiently in their teaching. [...]

Comment on Dear students: In this classroom you will have to have your mobiles turned ON by Anthony Salvagno

Anthony Salvagno — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:30:00 +0000

I’m teaching a 300 level lab course and using the same principles with my students. I’m a practitioner of open notebook science and the goal of the course is to teach the students how to maintain a good notebook and do it openly. The course site can be found here: 2012juniorlab.iheartanthony.com with all their notebooks linked on the main page.

I’m encouraging them to be creative with how they want to take notes and communicate with their classmates and I can’t wait to see what happens this semester!