It talks about crowdsourcing in regards to science: blogging (or microblogging) to create a space where others (specifically scientists) can contribute ideas. The idea is fantastic, but is it realistic? Do scientists have the time to write blogs, comment on other scientists’ blogs, and at the end of the day sift through numerous contributions to see if any of them were relevant to their work? Is that perhaps, something they need to MAKE time for?

Check out the BBC article: “Google ‘aids doctors’ diagnoses’” for the official story.

Even better, though, is this blog: “How Doctors Use Google”
It’s from a blog where doctors can discuss odd cases in order to help each other. The post links to some examples of doctors who actually disclose how they use Google and a link to an article on how to evaluate websites.

Truly, I think this is more to the heart of the matter. It doesn’t matter whether it’s health or other research. For health matters, it just so happens that consumers are often using the internet to look up their own conditions and take their health information into their own hands. Note, however, that the results of the health search are far more successful when vetted by a professional who has the background training.

Consider, however, that a patient (or consumer) has very intimate knowledge of their own body and symptoms. They also have a vested interest in becoming a specialist in their own ailment and treatment. It IS possible that they could educate themselves to the level of the professional in that particular area.

Offering them the ability to give their input instead of closing the door on their possible knowledge could be of benefit to society. Of course, it could also open the door to allowing a lot of really misguided self-described “experts” to present misinformation.

While I recognize this as a danger, we must ask ourselves very honestly: hasn’t the media very often propagated misinformation in the pursuit of selling papers? Even the most respected consumer media outlets have printed the sexy headlines of weak studies. Don’t kid yourself that you’re protected from misinformation just because a so-called “professional journalist” has written the article.

However, what we’re talking about here are subject-matter experts and their research data being opened up to the public for interpretation and comment.

As long as it is evident who has edited or contributed content and what their credentials are, I’m willing to forgo the dubious distinction of “professional journalistic integrity” (such as it is ~cough~).

I couldn’t imagine if we didn’t have Google to look to! Wow.