The Scientific Collaboration on the Internet book has (finally) been published. Check out my chapter (with Gary Olson and Marsha Naidoo) on the work we did with international AIDS research collaborations.

From the MIT Press website:

Modern science is increasingly collaborative, as signaled by rising numbers of coauthored papers, papers with international coauthors, and multi-investigator grants. Historically, scientific collaborations were carried out by scientists in the same physical location—the Manhattan Project of the 1940s, for example, involved thousands of scientists gathered on a remote plateau in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Today, information and communication technologies allow cooperation among scientists from far-flung institutions and different disciplines. Scientific Collaboration on the Internet provides both broad and in-depth views of how new technology is enabling novel kinds of science and engineering collaboration. The book offers commentary from notable experts in the field along with case studies of large-scale collaborative projects, past and ongoing.

But as an outsider, I found myself frequently turning to the person next to me and asking, “Is this cool?” or, “Is (s)he anyone?” Understanding the science is a prerequisite, but in order to really be a member of the community, you have to know to whom or to what to pay heed. I’m at a conference in my own field this week, and last week’s experience has made me more sensitive to this phenomenon. Today I overheard someone explaining to a conference newbie why one session was likely to be more interesting than the other, and I realized that a) I completely agreed with him, and b) to know that required a lot of knowledge that wasn’t in the conference program.

a) Labels (not folders): I don’t mind labeling things. I believe that for some people labeling works extremely well. And from a technical perspective, labels aren’t all that different from folders. But folders operate on the idea that a message can only be in one place at a time. I arrange my e-mail by project (rather than topic). I am a frequent filer (I like an empty inbox). I delete a LOT of e-mail rather than saving it. And I like folders. But GMail makes me feel like I’m a weakling for not joining the hip crowd and throwing off the oppressive folder paradigm.

b) Search (don’t sort): Sorting is a really efficient way to find things, especially if you don’t remember the exact words. Try sorting your spam box by subject sometime - I bet you can skim for false postivies it much faster. But not in GMail - they won’t let you sort.

c) Full feature widget (not the simple one): I use iGoogle as my home page. iGoogle used to have a great GMail widget that gave a really simple count of unread messages, showed previews if you wanted them, and allowed you to hide the previews if you didn’t. Recently Google decided they had a brand new whiz-bang widget that made the old one useless. So they took the old one away. But the new one is significantly different, especially in that you can’t hide the previews (so that subject line about the Richard Simmons dolls you are bidding for on eBay shows up on your home page at work). Doesn’t matter that a lot of people prefered the old one - we can’t have it any more.

I admit, Google is not the only company who does this stuff, and they aren’t the worst offender. But every once in a while I hear someone tell me about how amazing Google is and how they can do no wrong, and I cringe.

At the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work
Saturday, November 8. San Diego, CA

Recent years have seen the rise of new forms of large-scale distributed scientific enterprises supported primarily through advanced information infrastructures. These advanced infrastructures are called “cyberinfrastructure,” although terms such as grid computing, collaboratories, and eScience are also commonly used. Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Cyberinfrastructure intersect in their aims to support collaboration within heterogeneous groups and across physical distribution. Furthermore the development of CI - or large-scale informational resources - is itself a form of collaborative work worthy of CSCW research.

Cyberinfrastructure development is thought of as requiring interdisciplinary collaboration: particularly between technologists and domain scientists (e.g. physicists, hydrologists, biologists, etc.), but CI is also often meant to stimulate a new scientific discipline entirely. The interdisciplinarity and novelty of the science itself creates a challenge for designers of cyberinfrastructure, namely, figuring out who will be using the system and for what. Development projects typically include expert domain scientists who both advise and serve as alpha users. Project participants have concerns about i) aligning the end-goals of the diverse experts who participate in CI development; ii) designing tools that will support actual scientific research rather than utopian technologies that sit unused on shelves; and ii) motivating the sustained contributions of participants.

The workshop will address four related themes:

• Designing for Emerging Groups
• Designing for the Long-Term
• Designing for Interoperability
• The Role of CSCW Practitioners in CI Research and Development

This workshop is intended for those who are involved currently in efforts to research and develop cyberinfrastructure to support science, however individuals with a strong interest in getting involved in this area are welcome space permitting.

To participate please submit a 2 to 4 page position paper for consideration. See website for details.

Timeline

• September 24 (EXTENDED), Position Paper Submissions Due
• October 3, Notification of Acceptance

Organizers

• Charlotte P. Lee, University of California, Irvine
• Matthew Bietz, University of California, Irvine
• David Ribes, Georgetown University

Website: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~cplee/ScienceCI.html

Here’s an attempt at a reproducible version. The amounts are guesses, but exact proportions don’t matter all that much. The basic squash + eggs + yogurt base could work with several other ingredients. For a Thanksgiving thing I might add pecans and dried cranberries. Or maybe a more Mediterranean flair with feta and red peppers.

Squash Pudding

• 1/2 large butternut squash
• 3 eggs
• 1/2 c. Greek yogurt
• 1 c. frozen corn
• 1/3 c. dried tart cherries
• 1/3 c. grated parmesan cheese
• nutmeg, salt, & pepper to taste

First, cook the squash until it’s soft. I peeled the squash and cut it into cubes, then dumped it in my steamer, but I could have microwaved it or boiled it or baked it. Whateva. Let it cool a bit (you don’t want it to cook the eggs) and mash it up.

Mix squash with the rest of the ingredients. Spray 6 ramekins with non-stick cooking spray, and fill not quite to the top with the mix. Cover with plastic wrap. Steam for about 25 minutes or until they’re set. (You could also bake them in a water bath in the oven, but then don’t use the plastic wrap.)

To serve: hold the ramekins with a towel (they’re hot!), run a knife around the edge, and then invert ramekin onto plate.

I just love the idea of interacting with a computer by shaking it.

An interesting article about how to gauge the risk of a scientific experiment that just might blow up the world. But now all I can think about is how many of those physicists were D&D geeks in high school, and that CERN’s real mission is to prove that fantasy is reality. Turns out that Hadron is actually the name of a supremely powerful dragon banished to live inside a proton by 20th-level wizard who rolled a 19 in battle in 1982.

and focaccia:

Nummy!!!!