It’s the beginning of a new year, and I’m going through the usual soul-searching exercise of thinking about what is working and what isn’t with the blog.
Over on the 2020 Science Facebook page (remember that?) I’ve asked for readers’ thoughts on what they’ve enjoyed, on 2020 Science, what could be better, what else I should think about including, and what I should write off as a really bad idea.
Please do join in the conversation – it’s incredibly helpful to know how the blog could be improved.
And that link again: http://www.facebook.com/2020science
Thanks, and have a great 2011!
(And of course, if you are not into Facebook, please don’t hesitate to add your comments here!)
No related posts.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
One day I’ll get into Facebook.
For me, I would like to see lots of your trademark rigorous, thoughtful and incisive assessment and analysis of the news of the day and key issues in em tech, risk & science comms. The trick for you I suppose is making that your day job so you can give it the time that your devoted followers demand!
Thanks Hilary
The thing I’m thinking of ditching is this Lost in the Maize “column” – it served a purpose, but readership is pretty low, and the content is a little eclectic!
I think networking between different groups is critical for inspiration and idea gathering.
Here in most of its inefficient glory is the way I used your blog tonight:
1. I started with the post below on the raft US National Nanotechnology Initiative Environmental, Health and Safety strategy. I could tell right away that this was lengthy, and quite frankly, pretty boring. So I followed the advice of commenter Vincent and scrolled down to Chapter 8. I agree, this seems like the start of setting up a framework for the various agencies involved to come together and work on such things as prioritization, research standards, data enhancement, risk assessments, setting up a framework and partnering with stakeholders, and standards.
2. So then I went over to this post where I saw a comment from Hilary Sutcliffe, who I’ve seen comment before, and I wonder, who is she anyway? So I link through the following:
http://www.matterforall.org/
http://www.matterforall.org/about-us/our-people/
http://www.nanoandme.org/home/
http://www.nanoandme.org/nano-safety/
http://www.safenano.org/
http://www.safenano.org/SingleNews.aspx?NewsID=1131
Eureka! I found the article below. I really like it.
http://www.particleandfibretoxicology.com/content/pdf/1743-8977-7-40.pdf
I don’t actually work with nano-materials, but as a chemist, I think it is a great outline of how to establish protocols for working with new and unfamiliar materials, and implementation of the precautionary principle. I especially like the design tree flow chart and the figures. I will bookmark this in case I want to set up something similar.
So, now back to the US National Nanotechnology Initiative Environmental, Health and Safety strategy. After making chapter 8 into the Introduction, tables and diagrams could be added to handle the necessary standards and nomenclature. As well as detailed flow charts as to how multiple agency interactions might take place. Then, something very specific based on the style of this report should come next. Because if you want to convey concepts about health and safety you have to be clear about it. And this Particle Fiber and Technology document knows how to do that. I don’t think you can have a Environmental health and safety strategy unless you really get down to the nuts and bolts of health and safety. It is the lack of these specifics that make much of the Initiative report seem like so much fluff.
This is a wonderful account of the power of making connections on the net Gaythia – thank you!
Regarding the NNI strategy, you should seriously consider posting your comments on the strategy portal, as I think they are extremely important, but will not be taken seriously by the necessary people unless they are inside the formal comment/review process.
Done! I combined my posts into one and I spiffed it up a bit, taking out “fluff” and putting in:
Properly structured, I believe that the Initiative report can be deep, wide and accessible all at the same time.
{ 2 trackbacks }