As some of my readers will know, I've been interviewing science bloggers this year for my PhD dissertation on how science bloggers decide what to write about. As I'm transcribing (typing word-for-word) the interview recordings, I've been sharing short excerpts on Twitter using the hashtag #MySciBlog. Some interview gems, though, deserve to be shared in a longer format. That's how I felt about the following quote, from a scientist blogger, about how he/she decides what is blogworthy:
"It's a left brain, right brain thing. [...] I'll look at it, and if the left side of my brain goes, oh, I wonder if this is an IL-6 pathway? [Shakes head] No, that's not going to make it. Because that's [me] the scientist going, I want to read this so I can have a better understanding of this mechanism. Not going to make it.
If however I look at it and I go, 'ohh! Well, that's cool!' That's the right side of the brain that is essentially saying that this actually has a value [emphasis], to me, as a human, not as a lab-coat. And, that's how I decide."
This science blogger's "left brain vs. right brain" description of what is worth blogging about, while not exactly scientific, is a fascinating metaphor for how scientists bloggers manage to separate their own niche scientific interests from their "popular" science writing. This science blogger is going to great lengths to make sure the science he/she blogs about is relevant and appealing to readers as humans and not just fellow scientists.
Other science bloggers out there - how do YOU decide what is blogworthy?