Science 2.0: not so new?

B. Shneiderman's Perspective, “Science 2.0” (7 March, p. [1349][1]), is quite right to identify the value of new observations of human interaction made possible by the advent of the Internet. However, Shneiderman's assertion that these data require some radically new methodology, which he calls “Science 2.0,” is apparently based on a misunderstanding of the scope of existing scientific methods. Shneiderman says that Science 2.0 will address questions of human interaction that “cannot be studied adequately in laboratory conditions,” because “the interaction among variables undermines the validity of reductionist methods.” Instead, data for analysis must be “collected in real settings.” This sounds exactly like approaches that are already practiced, with great success, by researchers in the fields of (to name but a few) ecology, evolutionary biology, geology, paleontology, economics, cosmology, and social science. Indeed, what Shneiderman calls Science 1.0 has always included methods beyond simple controlled experiments, such as inference from observation of integrated natural systems and the careful use of “natural experiments” ([1][2]) to test and eliminate competing hypotheses. 1. 1.[↵][3] 1. J. Diamond , Science 294, 1847 (2001). [OpenUrl][4][FREE Full Text][5] # Response {#article-title-2} I agree that the natural sciences are based on more than just replicable, controlled laboratory experimental studies, and that observational methods play a key role in the natural and social sciences ([1][6]). However, the interventional methods as practiced in design science studies of sociotechnical systems have novel elements. In addition to “natural experiments,” such as when the FaceBook managers change the deletion rules or eBay administrators update their fraud control mechanisms, I was advocating research-oriented interventions to develop predictive models. Amazon and NetFlix designers conduct many studies to improve their user interfaces by making changes in a fraction of accounts to measure how user behaviors change. Their goal is to improve business practices, but similar interventional studies on a massive scale could develop better understanding of human collaboration in the designed (as opposed to natural) world ([2][7]). For example, studies of the impact of Web-based enrollment procedures on trust and perceived privacy could facilitate more effective online health care. Developing better models of recognition and reward structures in open-source software, scientific collaboratories, or museum and library annotation projects could accelerate the adoption of these productive mechanisms. Understanding how to increase the motivation of residents to report crime, health problems, or natural disasters and then provide resident-to-resident assistance could improve community safety. Observations of natural experiments will be important, but my point was that Science 2.0 researchers can also intervene in massive computer-mediated sociotechnical systems to measure impacts in ways that astronomers or geologists cannot. I suggest that if we, as a society, made major commitments to support these new research directions, many of our civic institutions could be dramatically improved. 1. 1.[↵][8] 1. J. Hatton, 2. P. B. Plouffe , Science and Its Ways of Knowing (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997). 2. 2.[↵][9] 1. J. Horgan , The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age (Broadway Books, New York, 1997). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1153539 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1. in text" [4]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.issn%253D0036-8075%26rft.aulast%253DDiamond%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%26rft.volume%253D294%26rft.issue%253D5548%26rft.spage%253D1847%26rft.epage%253D1848%26rft.atitle%253DECOLOGY%253A%2BDammed%2BExperiments%2521%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.1067012%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11729294%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [5]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIyOTQvNTU0OC8xODQ3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjM6Ii9zY2kvMzIwLzU4ODEvMTI5MC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30= [6]: #ref-2 [7]: #ref-3 [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 1. in text" [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 2. in text"