Field of Science

Are we doomed?

The Scream
#SciDoom: One of the quite little corners of the internet that I subscribe to is science writer/author Philip Ball's blog homunculus. Back in June Philip posted his answer to The New Statesman's question: Are we doomed? I immediately thought to myself, Cool question...I'd love to see science bloggers tackle it...en do I get this meme going...perhaps a Field of Science network theme week to lead the way.

Thus the genesis of this, Field of Science's first theme week where I asked the most interesting people I know--science bloggers--if they'd be interested in tackling this most intriguing question: Are we doomed? A bunch of them took me up on it, and we'll be posting their answers all week. So Yay! our first theme week at FoS, and such a cheerful theme too.

But what about the meme--the part where Are we doomed? goes viral throughout the science blogosphere and I get to read uncounted brilliant posts answering the question? Well, I can cross my fingers, hope, and start a hashtag: #SciDoom

Update: Index of posts.

Field of Science Welcomes 7 New Science Blogs

But before I get to the good stuff--new science bloggers--humor me while I digress and scratch the itch (read: kernel of truth) in the above joke.

About this time a year ago Bora left ScienceBlogs. In a post we're all familiar with, Bora speculated about the nature of science blog networks and their future. In that post, he mentions the other science blog networks including Field of Science. Networks he does not mention in that post dated July 19, 2010 include: Wired, Scientopia, Guardian, PLoS, SciAm[1]. Why did Bora omit these science blog networks? Because, at that time, they didn't exist.

In the year since PepsiGate the aformentioned nonexistent science blog networks were born. In response to each "birth" the science blogosphere has found a reason or two to navel gaze and congradulate one another... Inevitably, these meta science blogging posts inspire comparisons and/or lists: of science blog networks. But if you were to use those posts to generate your own list of science blog networks, it would be far from complete. In fact, aside from ScienceBlogs, you'd be hard pressed to find a network on your list that existed prior to PepsiGate.

I've digressed because, frankly, I'm extremely unconforatble with PR--prefering instead to let the content speak for itself. But as a constant reader of Field of Science I have to say, the quality of the content is there, but it appears only a few people are listening (see dearth of inclusion of FoS detailed above).

I blame myself for this lack of awareness that Field of Science is a premier science blog network.  I've failed to mention that it predated PepsiGate by well over a year; it finds and promotes new, fresh voices in science; it is diverse on every level; it is innovative and dynamic; and it was doing all these things and more long before those other networks even existed. So there, I've said it.  Are you listening science blogosphere?  The next time you put together a list of "high-profile" or "major" science blog networks, or decide to complain about a the old boys club[2] in science blogging, will you include mention of Field of Science?  If not, I'd like to know why not.

But now to the good stuff.  The stuff that speaks for itself.  The 7 new blogs at Field of Science:

Read them, comment, subscribe and expect more to come.

On the design side, we've added a drop down menu of blogs (because who can remember all those abbreviations) under the down arrow "↓" to the left of the quick navigation menu at the top of the page.

Finally, if you are new to Field of Science and now you are curious about FoS, we have an about page, a contact form and comments.

[1] A list and a map (not to scale) of science blog networks.

[2] But of course, if you include Field of Science, you'll have to use it as the exception to the rule.