Is There Really Science in the Twitterverse?

Hello BenchFly readers! It’s been quite awhile since my last edition, and I apologize for my absence. The life of a scientist… you know? But enough of that- down to my latest instalment. I was all set to give you an instructive, fun article on signal transduction, but events over the past few weeks have inspired me to deviate from the standard Enzyme Corner recipe to bring you something different. Without further ado, through the magic of social media I am here to talk to you about… the magic of social media… or is it the myth? In particular, I’m curious about the place of science within the Twitterverse.

“A bird can roost but on one branch, a mouse can drink not more than its fill from a river.” – Chinese proverb

I can’t quite remember when I first started using Twitter. In the beginning, it was a big deal; I completely bought into the social media hype. But I also found there were substantial benefits to it. If nothing else, I got introduced to BenchFly through Twitter, and hey we can all relate to that! Truly though, I felt as though Twitter was fast becoming a viable tool that could be used to exchange or present information to a widespread audience- assuming it has not become that tool already. For my part, I’ve tried to contribute to science via Twitter; I always tweet whenever I have a new manuscript accepted (particularly once it’s in electronic or paper print). I tweet when I have a new blog post out. I tweet when I’ve discovered or noticed something interesting about science that I don’t usually see in my everyday routine. I enjoy using Twitter as a means of disseminating information- provided I don’t give away research secrets or divulge something that’s about to go into a publication.

In addition to putting a lot out into Twitter, every so often I try to see if I can maybe get something back. As far as I can tell, there are quite a few scientific experts out there. Certainly, there are the people who run BenchFly and everyone who follows BenchFly! In all seriousness, regardless of whether they follow BenchFly, there are professors, grad students, postdocs, research associates, and lab managers. There are technical and sales reps for companies that manufacture and/or distribute equipment and consumables used for scientific research. There are science writers and science media consultants. Effectively, there is a substantial concentration of science intellect out there in the Twitterverse- in theory a lot of hefty brains to pick.

.

“A bird doesn’t sing because it has an answer, it sings because it has a song.” – Maya Angelou

Like many researchers out there, my research requires me to do things that I have not, as of yet, gained extensive familiarity or expertise with. Or, to put it bluntly, sometimes I’ll run an experiment, or use a piece of equipment or biochemical reagent, and I don’t have the faintest idea of what I’m doing. And so, here in 2012 in the internet age, I can take a little walk from the lab bench to my desk, log onto my Twitter account, and throw out a question or two to the Twitterverse. For instance:

(Yes, I know I typed “tryptONE soy broth” instead of “tryptIC soy broth.” What can I say- the exhaustion of a scientific researcher.)

For those of you who are about to complain that my questions are too microbiology-specific, hold the phone for just one second- here’s something a bit less microbiological:

Are people even reading these tweets? Do I have a substantial presence on Twitter? I’m not sure how to answer that. I can throw out a few numbers, for the curious folk. At the moment of writing this, I have 233 followers. I can confidently say that at least 160 of them have some attachment to science or scientific research. I have also been added to 35 lists on Twitter (do people still use those or have they fallen out of common usage?), 26 of which follow scientists. On top of that, I know for a fact that at least one of the questions above was retweeted by at least 2 people; everyone who follows those retweeters, in turn, should have also seen my tweet. Overall, who knows how many people read my question.

I bet you’re all wondering, what sorts of answers did I get for the questions I tweeted above? How many people inundated me with answers, echoing out across the Twitterverse? Well, I’ll tell you:

Zero.

That’s right, zero. Not a single reply to any of those three questions above (along with many other questions I’ve tweeted in my history on Twitter). Some questions or comments have received replies, over my history on Twitter. Many others, however, have not.

.

“Hold fast to dreams for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly.” – Langston Hughes

So, what went wrong? What happened to my unshakable faith in Twitter as a viable tool for communications, the exchange of ideas and information? Was it misplaced?

Were my questions too specific for one area (well, no, because from above you can see how it ranges from microbiology to general chemistry)? Was it that, simply, no one had an answer? Was no one paying attention?

.

“I would rather learn from one bird how to sing than to teach 10,000 stars how not to dance.” – E. E. Cummings

Some of you might find this shocking: yes, I do have a life outside of science. Back on Sunday night, for instance, I was watching the season 2 finale of The Walking Dead. With the revelation of Michonne and her katana, and that final camera pan away from the campsite and the view of that prison in the distance, Twitter was on fire with tweets about The Walking Dead! Trending topics on Twitter, during that hour, included “Michonne” and “Lori.” I suppose it was too much of a science nerd fantasy to hope, in parallel, that the comparison of trypticase and tryptic soy broth could spark a similar reaction across social media…?

Perhaps it’s just a case that the science following on Twitter can’t quite compare to that of zombies who eat the living. It raises a question though: if we can’t discuss science- and I’m talking about the nitty gritty minutia of science, down to trypticase and EDTA- on Twitter, then where? The discussion groups on LinkedIn? Facebook? More traditional discussion forums on biology-type websites? But then, even if these types of questions are answered in those old school- oops, I mean traditional- discussion forums, you still need to look for the right website, the right discussion “thread” or category among all the discussion forums, post your question, and hope for an answer (and keep an eye on it, if there’s no automated email alert set up for replies). Why is it that we’re not yet at a point where you can simply log on to Twitter, throw a question out into the Twitterverse and get an answer (or answers)?

Now to you, dear readers: what is your experience, if any, with science and Twitter?

.

What has been your experience with science and Twitter?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

.

.

Chris is originally from Montreal, and is a Comparative Biochemist and Physiologist. His educational and postdoctoral experiences have taken him from Montreal to Ottawa ON, State College PA, and finally back to Montreal’s biotech industry. In his spare time- as you would expect from a Canadian- Chris enjoys watching hockey and is a stalwart fan of the Montreal Canadiens and Ottawa Senators. You can keep up to date with the latest from Chris on Twitter.

.

 

Do you think Twitter is a useful or overrated tool for scientists?

.

.

13 comments so far. Join The Discussion

  1. @thecancergeek

    wrote on March 29, 2012 at 2:10 am

    I have had the opposite experience – virtually every question I've ever posted I have gotten answers to (some opinion-based, some factual), and have connected with many companies – but timing is critical. Weekends are not that great for information IME even though trainees are often working at some point during the weekend, usually I find they are working as quickly as possible to get back to their non-lab activities, so I would wait to ask on Monday…

    My interactions on twitter have helped me land a really competitive fellowship (ie I obtained a co-mentor without whom I am pretty sure I wouldn't have got funded). I have learned a lot from talking to patient advocate, oncologists, pharma people etc that have enriched my translational research training.

  2. @thecancergeek

    wrote on March 29, 2012 at 2:24 am

    BTW here's a few examples of great science conversations I've had over past 2 weeks alone on twitter ….I will post some screenshots that are on my dropbox (hope the links work for you)
    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1116969/Screen%20shot%202http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1116969/Screen%20shot%202http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1116969/Screen%20shot%202http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1116969/Screen%20shot%202http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1116969/Screen%20shot%202http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1116969/Screen%20shot%202

  3. @Comprendia

    wrote on March 29, 2012 at 9:35 am

    Hi Chris,

    Nice observations! I'd say you might need more followers and less specific questions to get more responses. I've seen with my own account that almost every question I ask gets some reply now, with 3500 followers. Some still flop though! In this survey done at ScienceOnline 2011, respondents said that Twitter was the best place to find information.
    http://comprendia.com/surveyscio11

    Life science companies are missing the opportunity to answer your questions, unfortunately many are more happy to Tweet items from their catalogs than to engage, with some exceptions. I've thought about creating a list of 'standard' hashtags for topics based on our research, stay tuned…

    Mary

  4. alan@benchfly

    wrote on March 29, 2012 at 10:18 am

    I agree, Mary. The more niche a question, the smaller percentage of followers will probably know the answer. So if the question is general, having a few followers may be enough to ignite a discussion. However, if the question is highly specialized, the odds of receiving an answer increase with the number of followers.

    It would be interesting to know if there's a "magic number" of followers where people start noticing a more engaged following. Of course, this depends on the content of the tweets and the background of the followers (spammers are generally not the best debate participants…), but in your own experience did you ever feel like things started to take off for you on Twitter at a certain number of followers?

  5. @thecancergeek

    wrote on March 29, 2012 at 10:42 am

    Actually, Mary I was just thinking this morning, I had an excellent example of a company interaction too, but again, unlike Chris question just tweeted out, I specifically DMd the company and asked the question. It was something like "I see you have a series of products ABC that all say they work, and I want to know which one to purchase for this application. Pls help…" and I got a helpful response.

  6. alan@benchfly

    wrote on March 29, 2012 at 10:47 am

    I don't have any stats on this, but my guess is that if you DM a company saying "Please help me buy your product", you'll get a 100% response rate… So if you can find a company that makes a product related to your question, DM-ing or directing your tweet at them may be a great strategy for getting an answer.

  7. @chrisadieni

    wrote on March 29, 2012 at 11:55 am

    That's the thing. Do you get replies for companies in the context of product info, or people out there genuinely trying to help you? (well, in my case, as described in my article, I've gotten neither)

  8. zfaulkes

    wrote on March 29, 2012 at 10:01 am

    Getting feedback on Twitter is excellent for big picture questions (career pathways, publishing), but not so good for specific scientific ones like you were asking. I would have answered your questions, but I couldn't. I do not have the knowledge.

    If you went to a general scientific meeting, like AAAS, and asked people these questions there, would you expect useful input? I think that's the sort of level where Twitter is at right now.

  9. @thecancergeek

    wrote on March 29, 2012 at 10:38 am

    I agree somewhat with Dr Zen on the generality issue, however for me, even some highly specific questions (like the one in my first screenshot about subcutaneous Herceptin logistics) got an answer quickly that was informative and useful to me as a HER2 researcher, although that was maybe because I also directed it back specifically at someone.

    I'd be curious maybe if there are differences within each subfield as to the number and usefulness of twitter users. IME cancer and cell biology-type people are pretty helpful – and I try to be likewise, but its harder and harder to keep up the busier I get..

  10. @MaverickNY

    wrote on March 29, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    I was so tempted to retort a rude word as the Intense Debate commenting crashed on me twice, but bit my tongue instead :-).

    Re: science discussions on Twitter, well probably depends upon a number of things…

    1) who do you follow who is relevant to your field?
    2) how many of the above?
    3) how active are they on Twitter?

    For myself, I really have to force myself stay away from Twitter when really busy with work or the intriguing scientific intrigue and discussions/debates around cancer and oncology can be a huge time sink – it can go on all day if I don't watch out!!

    Yes I've asked questions, received many useful answers, started or entered debates, even found several guest bloggers. So yeah, I love totally Twitter for scientific discussions and an educational place to learn from others.

  11. alan@benchfly

    wrote on March 29, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    Thanks for the comment- so sorry for the intense debate problems- that's the worst! We'll look into it immediately. And thanks for biting your tongue- you'll be paid back in good karma!

  12. @chrisadieni

    wrote on March 29, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    So what I'm hearing is that it is possible to get answers to questions. But not too-specific questions. In order to get specific answers to questions within a narrow niche, you need a high volume of followers, some of which will appreciate that particular niche and be able to respond.

  13. Mark Crowley

    wrote on May 21, 2012 at 4:57 am

    Interesting discussion, I've often felt the same way about computer science research on twitter where I find oddly very little discussion. Besides the fact that having more followers will obviously I think part of the reason is the medium. Twitter is inherently short message based. Long discussions can be had but only where each idea can be expressed in 140 characters. It's great for political debate, real scientific debate is a bit harder. Another reason could be why people are there. As someone said, twitter doesn't work well with most people's work process, so it's a fun place to chat quickly when you are not focussing on something else. I've seen people complaining they can't get scientifici discussions going on LinkedIn too, same problem, people don't go there for long discussions, they go to up date the CV. I think blogs are a better place for these kinds of discussions and even g+ which allows the random exploration and quick answers of twitter but makes it easy to provide longer answers and to track responses from others.

Leave a comment

will not be published