New media is not only capable of changing the world, but it is already doing it; in a sense, new media have and are always changing the world as new innovations continually bring new possibilities and opportunities to those who wish to utilize them. New media not only change and influence the way in which we behave towards others in society, but also change the ways in which we view the world itself, as well as the ways in which we interact with it – this can particularly be related to science, as was the focus of the weekly readings.
The capabilities of new media to transform science and the way in which it is conducted are far-reaching and extend throughout the field; new media and technologies shape the way that experiments are run, visualised and modeled, providing new methods and techniques that work towards attaining an understanding of the inner workings of the human body, the environment, different plants and animals and even the workings of the universe at large. An extreme yet incredibly amazing and interesting example of this can be found in the article ‘Craig Venter Creates Synthetic Life Form’, which reports on the fact that “scientists have created the world’s first synthetic life form” (Sample, 2010). Ignoring the ethical consequences of such an act, as well as the pros and cons that this innovation could offer, this is a landmark achievement in the field of science (and arguably in human history) and would not have been possible without the new technologies and media that enable this type of experiment. It should also be recognised that – as is pointed out in the article - this new innovation in biology may allow further innovations in science where “new life is made to benefit humanity, starting with bacteria that churn out biofuels, soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and even manufacture vaccines”. This facet of scientific discovery reflects another principle inherent in the relationship between new media and science – new innovations are continuously built upon preexisting innovations, sometimes utilising new media to do this yet sometimes also creating new media in the process.
Another aspect of science that is changed by new media are the opportunities for and the challenges of communicating, distributing and sharing ones findings. Through new communication methods such as the digitization of scientific publications, blogging and podcasts, science has become more accessible and transparent, not only within the field itself but for the public as well. Pisani (2011) acknowledges that new innovations in scientific data sharing allowed by new media “will mean more and faster progress… and better quality data” and Wilbanks (2011) also notes that “the internet is poised to transform science publishing and science itself”. These new innovations place an emphasis on sharing and can thus be related to the concepts of micropolitics and collaboration we discussed last week, as scientists would be able to freely and efficiently access and add to scientific data from all over the world, providing a comprehensive database of information that may assist in further discovery. As is noted by Wilbanks, the change towards access enabled by new media have “taken us into a world where the publication of research serves as a distributed commons of knowledge, as the beginning of millions of research cycles, not one where a short set of “pages” represents the end of a research investment”.
These are only a couple of examples of the ways in which new media are capable of changing science, technology and innovation. However, it should also be noted that new media also change us – as new media allow discoveries and innovations in the field of science, we as humans continue to learn more about ourselves and the world around us, impacting on the ways in which we interact with each other and live our lives. I would like to end this entry with a quote from Kelly (2010) that really stuck with me this week and that I believe sums up the relationship between this weeks concepts quite well:
Bibliography:
Pisani, Elizabeth (2011) ‘Medical science will benefit from the research of crowds’, The Guardian, January 11, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/11/medical-research-data-sharing>
Wilbanks, John (2011) ‘On Science Publishing’, Seed, <http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/on_science_publishing>
Kelly, Kevin (2010) ‘Evolving the Scientific Method: Technology is changing the way we conduct science’, The Scientist <http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57831/>
Sample, Ian (2010) ‘Craig Venter Creates Synthetic Life Form’, The GuardianMay 2, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form>.
The capabilities of new media to transform science and the way in which it is conducted are far-reaching and extend throughout the field; new media and technologies shape the way that experiments are run, visualised and modeled, providing new methods and techniques that work towards attaining an understanding of the inner workings of the human body, the environment, different plants and animals and even the workings of the universe at large. An extreme yet incredibly amazing and interesting example of this can be found in the article ‘Craig Venter Creates Synthetic Life Form’, which reports on the fact that “scientists have created the world’s first synthetic life form” (Sample, 2010). Ignoring the ethical consequences of such an act, as well as the pros and cons that this innovation could offer, this is a landmark achievement in the field of science (and arguably in human history) and would not have been possible without the new technologies and media that enable this type of experiment. It should also be recognised that – as is pointed out in the article - this new innovation in biology may allow further innovations in science where “new life is made to benefit humanity, starting with bacteria that churn out biofuels, soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and even manufacture vaccines”. This facet of scientific discovery reflects another principle inherent in the relationship between new media and science – new innovations are continuously built upon preexisting innovations, sometimes utilising new media to do this yet sometimes also creating new media in the process.
Another aspect of science that is changed by new media are the opportunities for and the challenges of communicating, distributing and sharing ones findings. Through new communication methods such as the digitization of scientific publications, blogging and podcasts, science has become more accessible and transparent, not only within the field itself but for the public as well. Pisani (2011) acknowledges that new innovations in scientific data sharing allowed by new media “will mean more and faster progress… and better quality data” and Wilbanks (2011) also notes that “the internet is poised to transform science publishing and science itself”. These new innovations place an emphasis on sharing and can thus be related to the concepts of micropolitics and collaboration we discussed last week, as scientists would be able to freely and efficiently access and add to scientific data from all over the world, providing a comprehensive database of information that may assist in further discovery. As is noted by Wilbanks, the change towards access enabled by new media have “taken us into a world where the publication of research serves as a distributed commons of knowledge, as the beginning of millions of research cycles, not one where a short set of “pages” represents the end of a research investment”.
These are only a couple of examples of the ways in which new media are capable of changing science, technology and innovation. However, it should also be noted that new media also change us – as new media allow discoveries and innovations in the field of science, we as humans continue to learn more about ourselves and the world around us, impacting on the ways in which we interact with each other and live our lives. I would like to end this entry with a quote from Kelly (2010) that really stuck with me this week and that I believe sums up the relationship between this weeks concepts quite well:
“At the core of science’s self-modification is technology. New tools enable new ways of discovery, different ways of structuring information. We call that organization knowledge. With technological innovations the structure of our knowledge evolves. The achievement of science is to discover new things; the evolution of science is to organize the discoveries in new ways. Even the organization of our tools themselves is a type of knowledge. Right now, with the advance of communication technology and computers, we have entered a new way of knowing” (Kelly, 2010).
Bibliography:
Pisani, Elizabeth (2011) ‘Medical science will benefit from the research of crowds’, The Guardian, January 11, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/11/medical-research-data-sharing>
Wilbanks, John (2011) ‘On Science Publishing’, Seed, <http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/on_science_publishing>
Kelly, Kevin (2010) ‘Evolving the Scientific Method: Technology is changing the way we conduct science’, The Scientist <http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57831/>
Sample, Ian (2010) ‘Craig Venter Creates Synthetic Life Form’, The GuardianMay 2, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form>.
