David Crotty’s Scholarly Kitchen post, Science and Web 2.0: Talking About Science vs. Doing Science describes patterns beyond the publishing industry.  Check out some of what he says about scientists’ use of Web 2.0 technologies:

Discovery, doing research, gathering and interpreting results, that’s the very nature of being a scientist. There are people whose main focus is talking about science, but we have different names for them — teachers, journalists, editors, and publishers. Talking about science, communicating experimental results, teaching scientific concepts, and reaching out to educate non-scientists are incredibly valuable practices. Communication is an important part of being a scientist. It is not, however, the top priority for most.

Every second spent blogging, chatting on FriendFeed, or leaving comments on a PLoS paper is a second taken away from other activities.

Remember that social media shares a lot in common with pyramid schemes. Pyramid schemes and social networks work better with more participants. If you’re involved in a pyramid scheme or a social network, it’s in your best interest to recruit others to join in. So there’s a nearly constant barrage of exhortations to participate, including unrealistic promises of future rewards.

Blogging tends to attract those with a strong interest in communication, writing, and teaching, along with activists who are championing a personal cause … What you see online reflects this small portion of scientists and may not be all that relevant to the greater community as a whole.

Science blogging is a tremendously insular world, and frequently an inwardly-gazing one. It’s often noted that the most common topic covered by science blogs is science blogging.

David does not suggest abandoning Web 2.0 technologies despite his reservations. Instead, he proposes a division of labor whereby scientists focus on doing science and others (publishers, journalists, etc.) focus on promoting their work.  Interestingly, this web 2.0 communication prompted a robust, multi-level discussion on the topic, an irony that I’m sure did not escape the author.

My takeaways…

• Libraries are not the only enterprises distracted by Web 2.0 technologies.
• An important aspect of this “do or die decade for public libraries” is putting technology in its place.
• David’s recommendation for science is a good strategy for public libraries.  Who would we enlist to discuss, analyze and promote the deep work of public libraries and what would they say?

Updated 3/8/2010: David extended his coverage with Science Blogging as a Public Outreach Tool — Unfulfilled Potential or Unrealistic Expectation?