Attention Science Minded People
We are building a database to make it easier for people to connect with scientists, science writers, science teachers (K-12), and science pages on Google+. If you have a science related degree, you are a science journalist, you are a science teacher (K-12), or you curate a science page, then add your profile/page to the database by filling out this form (http://goo.gl/vOJoN) and circling Science on Google+: A Public Database. We will categorize the database by discipline and share discipline specific circles with the Google+ community. Help spread the love of science by sharing this post with your circles!
Add your profile/page to the database: http://goo.gl/vOJoN
View underlying database: http://goo.gl/Yz8KR
See most recent shared circles: http://goo.gl/wvWg1
#Anthropology , #Astronomy , #Biology , #Botany , #Chemistry , #Computerscience , #Ecology , #Engineering , #Geography , #Geology , #Linguistics , #Mathematics , #Psychology , #Physics , and #Sociology
https://plus.google.com/u/0/105917944266111687812/about//cdn.embedly.com/widgets/platform.js
Science on Google+ 
I have a question about this (sorry, should have asked first, but until I saw my entry in the database I didn’t even realize it).
On the form it asked my PhD and the institution. As it says you are going to check on the education level and experience, I thought the question was degree+institution it came from. But when I looked at the list of entries, it looks more like institution is supposed to be my current affiliation. I am not employed by my degree institution, and I don’t want that to be misleading.
Was the institution question about the degree granting institution or was it about your current affiliation?
LikeLike
I have added my page Research to the database. Thanks for the opportunity and initiative!
LikeLike
Added my profile. This is a great idea! There are several attempts already to do this but each of them is important.
LikeLike
Good initiative! Brent Neal is right that there are several attempts to do this, but I hope that when Chris Robinson, Fraser Cain & Rajini Rao get together the result will be good. The only problem is this widespread Einstein avatar đ
LikeLike
Mary Mangan , your current affiliation or institution. Also, re. checking, we’re not doing a background check or anything, just making sure that the posted profile matches the database entry.
LikeLike
I felt right away that the Einstein image isn’t exactly the most representative for what this database initiative is attempting to do.
LikeLike
Arnold Sommerfeld would be more apropos than Einstein, just due to the number of physicists he trained over the years. But oh, oh so obscure!
LikeLike
That’s quite a nice effort to bring science to Google, I really appreciate that.
But as it is my own research field: What’s with other sciences like Philosophy? I understand that the given database is quite a good ground, but will there be more? I’m interested in collaborating and working together in science, so this would be a great step forward. đ
LikeLike
Ok, thanks Rajini Rao . Um…now I need to edit that. (Sorry again.) Should I re-enter a new db item? And you can delete the first? Or can someone with editing powers just change my affiliation?
LikeLike
Either would work, Mary Mangan ! We can update your info if you reenter using the form or just send me your affiliation here and I’ll edit the db.
LikeLike
Jakob ‘Addliss’ Dörre, there are always problems with categorizations. These depends on what people consider as science. For example I don’t see Logic in the list. Maybe it is considered as sub-branch of Mathematics?
LikeLike
Rajini Rao Do I qualify?
LikeLike
Of course, Dr. La Vergne Lestermeringolo Thatch ! Should we include you in math or engineering? We assume that some people will go into multiple categories, or you may prefer a single one (Chris Robinson ?).
LikeLike
Vassil Vidinsky are we are talking about scientists, or the sciences? If it is about science, then it shouldn’t be too hard to draw a line between hard and soft, physical and social varieties. But as far as scientists go, everyone’s a softy. And it may be good for the sake of collaboration to make your Google Circles a little wider. My opinion, definitely a decision worth thinking over, as it affects the course of the whole endeavor.
LikeLike
Jacob Dix , feel free to recommend a better avatar for the page, or better yet, custom create one that is just perfect đ If you have requests for additional categories, do let us know through the feedback link (if we miss it here). Vassil Vidinsky, The argument against being too specific is that we could have hundreds of subdivisions in any one science alone. Also, much of science is multidisciplinary today, and I myself would be hard pressed to define my field within biology.
LikeLike
Rajini Rao I am thinking, if I select engineering, then it will cover my initiatives of preparing students more effectively in K-12 Science and Mathematics. What do you think?
LikeLike
Agree, La Vergne Lestermeringolo Thatch . I should only take a minute to submit your information via the form, thanks!
LikeLike
I fully agree Jacob Dix. But I am not in charge of this endeavour, I just pointed out that it is not easy to categorize when you have such interdisciplinarity. I am not sure myself that I can qualify in their list.
LikeLike
I have a science profile, not a page but I am not really an expert in anything so I am not going to add myself. Either way, I love this initiative!
It’s great that you are putting a focus on public outreach, but don’t downplay the opportunity for scientists to get in touch with each other either. I have no idea of how many actual scientist there are on google+ but I suspect that there are quite a few or at least there will be at some point in time. The younger generation seems to be particularly well represented. Probably because of their thirst for technology. ;p
We have no idea of how long g+ will be around but it is growing a reputation that is quite different from facebook’s. Where on facebook, everybody has close social connections with their friends and family, google+ is a place for meeting new people, people with similar interests. Where facebook is a tabloid filled with gossip, google+ is a classy newspaper. Now, think a decade from now, if google+ maintains this reputation, it is going to draw in tons of graduating students from every branch of science. It’s very important for the public to grow a closer connection to science but don’t forget about those new scientists either, having some connections you can turn to when you are in need of information can make a world of difference.
If you could make cross polination between fields much easier, remove all friction, then the world would be a much better place. Question/answer feedback, exchange of services, pointing to useful resources, call in an expert of another circle by just +ing someone,… Google’s group videochat and shared workspace are excellent formats for reaching the public as well as other scientists. Drew Sowersby showed me his lab where he was running an experiment on yeast. I am just saying, the possibilities are endless and will only get better as tech improves (drawing on notes or photos in a shared workspace was already shortly implemented in google wave but will most likely make a return at some point in the future.)
I am not at home in the academic world so I have no idea how easy this is at the moment but whatever we can do to make it even easier is worth doing. Get great minds together and great things happen. Let’s turn google into the English coffeehouse of the eighteenth century! :p
LikeLike
#lumpersplitter Perhaps it would be better to widen “Geology” into “Earth Sciences”? Atmospheric/oceanographic/climate folks need a home (though some may object to being placed under that umbrella…)
LikeLike
Rajini Rao, should I redefine my field?
LikeLike
An observation that as a new initiative, this shouldn’t get bogged down in the difficulties of categorization. Though the irony of it is amusing. đ Rajini Rao about the image, I’ll definitely consider it.
LikeLike
Vassil Vidinsky , the Science of Philosophy is a science, but if we make a new category for it, it is likely to be very sparsely populated! You know your own interests best, what do you suggest?
LikeLike
I publicly post things on Physics and Biology, but I don’t consider myself as researcher in this fields (it will be misleading if I claim otherwise). The proper categorization should be Philosophy (with subdivision Philosophy of science & History of philosophy). But you’re right that it is going to be sparse. Is there another solution, Rajini Rao? General science says nothing…
LikeLike
info added Robby Bowles needs to add his info too. Would be depressing if the co-curator for #ScienceSunday wasn’t on the list đ
LikeLike
Does inclusion in this require the education info/locations (i.e. where I did my PhD, what is my current institutional affiliation) to be made Public on the profile?
LikeLike
Buddhini Samarasinghe – were we supposed to say where we did our PhD? I didn’t see that on the form (mine is public in any case – go Cal! – just concerned I’ve filled out the wrong form)
LikeLike
Buddhini Samarasinghe Allison Sekuler The form did not ask where.
LikeLike
Allison Sekuler and La Vergne Lestermeringolo Thatch No the form does not ask us to list that info, but it does ask us to make sure that info is visible so that the people curating the circle can check that our details are accurate. Does that mean our profiles have to show this info as ‘Public’?
LikeLike
Buddhini Samarasinghe and Allison Sekuler , I suspected there would be some confusion about this đ I read it as one’s current affiliation..whether in academia, industry, whatever. Chris Robinson thinks it’s okay if someone puts their PhD institution instead. Basically, as with the STEM women database, we will just be checking that the info entered matches the profile (in case any oddballs try to troll the database). No plan on checking CV’s or background! Buddhini, the info in the database will be public, but it’s not more than is already in your About page.
LikeLike
Buddhini Samarasinghe Yes, on your profile.
LikeLike
I read it as current affiliation too. Thanks
LikeLike
Thanks for fielding all of the questions, Rajini Rao! This is a really new database and some of the details still need to be worked out. As pointed out by Rajini Rao institution/affiliation and education level are really only used to weed out trolls. Scott Johnson, we changed Geology to Geology/Earth Sciences. Thanks. Jakob ‘Addliss’ Dörre, if you believe your posts will engage the scientific community, then add your profile to the database. I can’t promise anything but we may be able to find a home for you. Excellent points,Koen De Paus! While not explicitly stated, this project will definitely make it easier for scientists to find each other on G+ and may eventually provide a platform to facilitate interdisciplinary discussions. Erin Kane, we still need to figure out the multiple discipline issue (i.e., can the same person appear in multiple shared circles?). Robby Bowles- don’t forget to add your profile and ScienceSunday to the database!
LikeLike
Neuroscience should be added as a basic field as well. Thanks!
LikeLike
I appreciate this forum, i would love to interact with scientists working on lasers and spectroscopy.
LikeLike
Zuhaib Haider and Sarah Gilmore , if you’d like to be in the database, just pick the closest discipline that applies (engineering/physics and earth sciences, respectively) and enter your special interest in the separate field provided.
LikeLike
Rajini Rao thanks for guidance
LikeLike
Just registered a course on anthropology!!! Yeeeeaaaahhh, Im a “why” person.. get ready!! đ
LikeLike