Posted by: Kay at Suicyte | May 12, 2007

Meta post

As I mentioned in a recent post, I am a newbie in the blogosphere, not only with regard to posting, but also (to a lesser degree) with regard to reading your blogs. There are three types of posts that I find extremely interesting and useful:

  • Discussion and advice on bioinformatics tools or services – i have learned a lot already on what new services are being created out there and what tools other people in the field are using. One excellent example is the description of ‘screen scraping’ on Public Rambling. There are many more examples out there.
  • Discussion of recent scientific findings. In particular if these are not just copies of press releases, but contain some discussion on the merits of implications of the finding. A great example, which I enjoyed very much is the post on cell entry of Plasmodium found in The Daily Transcript.
  • ‘Inside stories’ about events/developements I knew about before, but now viewed and commented by somebody who was really involved. A great example from my area of interest is the posts on Velcade development in the Omics! Omics! blog.

There are other categories of postings that I don’t savour as much as other bloggers apparently do:

  • Posts on defending evolution against ID aficionados. For reasons that I don’t understand, this type of discussion appears to keep at least 30% of science bloggers busy. I don’t quite see the point in those posts; scientists don’t need to be convinced, and ID believers probably cannot be convinced by any amount of scientific reasoning.
  • Posts on blogging. Meta-blogging seems to be tremendously popular in the blogosphere. My ignorance here probably just goes to show that I am not a real blogger – maybe I will change my mind in the next few months. To make a start, I have created a tag ‘blogging’ and will use it here. My first meta-post.

My own blog will certainly focus on the same types of posts that I like to read on other people’s blogs. Most likely, you won’t read anything on ID here (although I already covered the subject of soul genomics). As much as I would like to give you exciting inside stories, this will have to wait until i am actually privy to anything interesting. I am afraid my readers (if only there were any!) will have to settle on my opinions on bioinformatics tools and new discoveries in molecular and cellular biology.



  1. Amen on the Meta-Blogging. At best all blogging about blogging tends to be recycled platitudes and at worst its terrible melancholy narcissistic drivel. (I put a post of on that very subject a while ago: The Most Pointless Posts Ever)

    Double Amen on the evolution vs. ID debate. I think that argument extends to politics two. Nobody ever thoughtfully reconsiders their position on any issue, and it usually devolves into name calling.

    Good luck with the blog! 🙂

  2. Ugh, “too”… I meant “too.”

  3. First off, like the blog. i look forward to returning. Second, and it’s a small point, I’m afraid I differ with you on the utility of ID posting. I don’t do much of it myself but I think others recognize that ID proponents represent a significant threat to public understanding of science and indirectly affect public policy in a adverse way. Sharpening the rhetorical skills against ID’ers through online debating is, I think, useful.
    Love the Tuscany photo.

  4. Meta-blogging posts do tend to be pretty dull. Sometimes they’re useful if you have no inspiration. You could argue that highlighting someone else’s post can send them more traffic and helps you to network. I wouldn’t make a habit of it though.

    I’m with you on ID/creationist bashing – I find it tremendously tedious. What annoys me is those so-called “science blogs” that are more or less devoted to the topic and rarely talk about science (research, discoveries). I appreciate that in the US there’s concern that fundamentalists can affect policy and education, but the rest of us don’t need to hear it incessantly.

  5. Thanks to all commenters !

    I agree that the importance of ID vs. evolution discussions is probably very different in the US and in Europe (where i live). As far as I know, IDers are generally not taken seriously here anyway. As a consequence, the amount of effort put into arguing about evolution appears greatly exaggerated to most Europeans.

    However, there is one ID related issue where I am at odds with most other scientists: I think that even creationists have a right to talk about their beliefs in public, publish them in newspapers, and so forth. I don’t understand the general outcry coming from scientists whenever they see a creationist article someplace. I don’t see what’s wrong with that. Maybe my attitude to this is also softened by seeing creationists and ID’ers as wackos, but not as a danger to our civilisation.

  6. very interesting, but I don’t agree with you

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: