Notes from the Biomass

Generally, I don't like chain letters but the following survey that I picked up at Pharyngula, seems supportive of academic blogging, thus...

Overview:
The following survey is for bloggers who are actual or aspiring academics (thus including students). It takes the form of a go-meme to provide bloggers a strong incentive to join in: the 'Link List' means that you will receive links from all those who pick up the survey 'downstream' from you. The aim is to create open-source data about academic blogs that is publicly available for further analysis. Analysts can find the data by searching for the tracking identifier-code: "acb109m3m3". Further details, and eventual updates with results, can be found on the original posting:
http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2005/09/academic-blog-survey.html

Instructions:
Simply copy and paste this post to your own blog, replacing my survey answers with your own, as appropriate, and adding your blog to the Link List.

Important (1) Your post must include the four sections: Overview, Instructions, Link List, and Survey. (2) Remember to link to every blog in the Link List. (3) For tracking purposes, your post must include the following code: acb109m3m3

Link List (or 'extended hat-tip'):
1. Philosophy, et cetera
2. Pharyngula
3. Notes from the Biomass
4. Add a link to your blog here

Survey:

Demographics
Age - 33
Gender - Male
Location - Berlin, Germany
Religion - None
Began blogging - October 2004
Academic field - Computational Biology
Academic position [tenured?] - group leader [no]

Approximate blog stats
Rate of posting - daily
Average no. hits - 80/day
Average no. comments - 1/day
Blog content - 80% academic, 0% political, 20% personal.

Other Questions
1) Do you blog under your real name? Why / why not?
- Yes. Anonymity is not for scientists that want to communicate.

2) Do colleagues or others in your department know that you blog? If so, has anyone reacted positively or negatively?
- Yes. Most colleagues seem rather puzzled about why one would do so.

3) Are you on the job market?
- No.

4) Do you mention your blog on your CV or other job application material?
- No. But there is link from my home page for those who are interested.

5) Has your blog been mentioned at all in interviews, tenure reviews, etc.? If so, provide details.
- n/a.

6) Why do you blog?
- Social software (and blogs) are (one) good way to foster scientific communication, particular across disciplines. Add general curiosity.

Taking a stroll down to the beach, Lincoln Stein walked past us right outside the Max-Delbrueck-Laboratory, where bacterial genetics was invented. Instead of making a smart remark (such as a foot fall) or flickring him, I was just thinking: "Hey, new haircut!"

Damn you, Stew, damn you!

Common lore has it that 10% of the people actively listen to and understand your presentation, 20% don't get it and 70% are thinking about sex. This might have been true in the 80s but I am convinced that the 70% in the audiences in this millenium think about whether to get out their laptop when the Sigmas start their Slow Waltz and the gene names receive superscripts in cyrillic.
Flipping the lid of your laptop open is certainly as socially outlawed as publicly approaching your old lady/heartthrob/manifestation of a Leonardo DiCaprio in indecent manners. The main reason why we do see laptops in audiences is probably because they are easier to access - and more tempting.

On this conference, nobody uses their laptop during talks but the focus is easily noticable - as soon as the light goes on to allow for questions, many people in the back rows reach for their portable computers.
Bioinformatics conferences were different: There were always people with note books, such as the director of the Center for Intelligent Intelligence whose halo of white hair radiated "Before your contribution to the entropic death of the universe by uttering abbreviations has come to end, little fellow on the stage, I will have commanded my minions to solve the mysteries of cancer using Markov Ball-and-Chains". Or the geek grad student, showing of his vintage installation of HolyBSD on his extra-heavy notebook with a crack, inviting you to watch the recompilation of the kernel and his Dungeon & Dragons character sheet. Or the pundit in the second row who downloaded and browsed the papers of the speaker during the talk to poke him with questions about material that was not presented.
I don't know what to make of it - is it better to "work" in the back row than to let your mind wander aimlessly?

[N.B. No, I did not write this in the lecture theater]

Obviously, there will be as many answers to questions as there are scientists (plus one). However, if you focus on the scientific quality of the talks, I always got the impression that the questions and the reactions of the audience are a supreme measure, particular if I do not understand the specifics of the presentation to the T. If you get heated debates, clever questions and interaction between the speaker and the audience, I feel in a good place.
If you get the pundits talking about papers they read by chance or if you get deafening silence after every talk, finally relieved by the chair of the session, chances are I am wasting my time.
Just re-discovered the positive feeling here...

Maybe, I'll even see a creationist!
Well, starting Wednesday this week, I will attend a conference in Cold Spring Harbor (not a likely hideout for those, if I think about it). It'll be my first non-bioinformatics conference in a long while though.

Forget about the genome in today's Nature, the other articles of the special chimp issue seem a lot more interesting than the n-th partial sequencing of another mammal. The real question to me is whether we have improved the gene finding in mammalian genomes. Not that I think that the work is insignificant - but the findings in the genome papers always disappoint. We know the genome so well, what novelties are left to discover?

Btw, check this large scale clinical systems biology experiment from the Advance Online Publication pages.