The ScienceBase list is most definitely skewed – I don’t think the claim has been made otherwise. There are plenty of good and interesting science-types that aren’t listed (and plenty that are, that I would think twive about following). But again, it forms a useful cohort for getting a feel for how things are developing.

Bottom line thought is that this is little more than data manipulation thumb-twiddling, with some fancy graphics thrown in. It really needs someone to take the time to set up a robust quantitative study – any takers?

That said – keep an eye out for that “Maynard’s Rats Nest” paper in Nature

I don’t really think we want scientists talking to each other more, do we? Think of it this way: the exchange that’s possible is deeper, more meaningful integration of scientists into society and a society that is science and language literate, highly numerate, artistically reverent, technologically proficient – wait I think I’ve just described Ancient Greece. Or a Star Trek episode.

The debate about who is included as a scientwist or, as Ruth says, self selects as such – and which this analysis invites – is fascinating. The Science Studies folk would enjoy reacting to the implied exclusivity in the context of ‘Science Communication’. Of course, if that’s the intention, to facilitate communication only between currently active scientists, then that’s fine; but I guess right now it’s a little ambiguous…..it’s Twitter!

I haven’t seen the ‘only a medic’ comment, but it’s brilliant. Of course Kuhn never really counted medics or engineers as scientists; they were too engaged with inputs beyond their control for ‘puzzle solving’. I digress.

This is very exciting. And while I think it’s great that scientists are talking to one another via Twitter – which by golly they are! – I’m even more interested to see how scientists and non-scientists use the medium to talk to each other (even with ex-practicing engineering researchers comme moi).

Great start to many more analyses I’m sure.

The medium is still relatively new, and we shouldn’t let gravity become its dominating force, but look for interesting tweets from the smaller bubbles, too!

Joerg

And then there’s the ‘medic factor’ as well – I saw a comment from one of the early ‘scientwists’ on the list about someone being ‘just a medic’ – I think that was enough to offput a lot of doctors on Twitter from signing up for the list. But that’s just my intuitive, literature-person guess. I don’t think @bengoldacre is one of the scientwists though. Some folks just aren’t joiners even if/when they’re engaged with social media.

But I couldn’t agree more: people actually talking to each other can only be a good thing.