I just logged on to do a final post, summing up my Goldschmidt “take home lessons” and my experiences. So it is indeed timely that Alex posted the link below, as I can use it to structure my Goldschmidt experiences (read on):
I think that the world of blogging, Facebook, Twitter etc can add so much to science. Of course there is always a danger of over-reliance on virtual worlds at the expense of the conversation. And honestly, the abovementioned tools do occasionally merit their reputation as a way to waste time. But they can also be powerful ways to communicate with the masses and extend the reach of your message. The case of Twitter and the Iranian elections are testament to this. Beyond external communication, canny scientists and conference organisers can use blogging and social network sites as a way to enhance their own community. New community members can be attracted, sub-communities can form, and debates can continue when face-to-face meeting is not possible. In this way, the conference and the virtual world can complement each other (and carbon emissions can be saved).
Blogging for Goldschmidt has certainly enhanced my experience of the conference. It made me pay more attention, probably helping me to stay awake at 2pm in a warm conference room after a good lunch. I have ventured into sessions that I wouldn’t normally have gone to, and it has provided a good opening line when I wanted to speak to someone I didn’t already know and was mildly over-awed by. But most importantly, blogging has kept me critical about what I have been learning. I have been asking myself questions such as: so how does this tie together? What does this mean overall? Didn’t X’s presentation feed into Y’s?
All of which leads me to my “take home lessons”. Some of the work presented was micro-level, highly detailed research. At the other end of the spectrum, presentations were given on macro-level, bigger picture work. But all of it plays a role in managing the Earth’s resources (and securing the Earth’s future). Everyone is writing a part of the story; either a whole chapter, or providing a detailed paragraph within that. I think perhaps we all just need to be a little reflective and critical about how our own research fits. And we need to be clear about communicating our work, where it feeds into the story, and where we need further detail to fill in to ours. I think ultimately, we all implicitly know this, but it is good to be explicitly reminded sometimes; and the Goldschmidt conference reminded me. This ties quite neatly back into the linked article from Alex; our science should be rigorous enough to withstand scrutiny (peer and public). And scrutiny and critique by people outside our own sphere, via the internet, will help us to remain awake to our role in this bigger picture; it can only help with innovation and progression.
So, one week after I began my Goldschmidt in Davos, I am home and ending my final post. Thank you for reading, I hope you have enjoyed it as much as I have.