Wednesday, July 5, 2006

The Crystal Ball?

July 5, 2006
David Leonhardt

The Internet Knows What You'll Do Next

A FEW years back, a technology writer named John Battelle began talking about how the Internet had made it possible to predict the future. When people went to the home page of Google or Yahoo and entered a few words into a search engine, what they were really doing, he realized, was announcing their intentions.

They typed in "Alaskan cruise" because they were thinking about taking one or "baby names" because they were planning on needing one. If somebody were to add up all this information, it would produce a pretty good notion of where the world was headed, of what was about to get hot and what was going out of style.

Mr. Battelle, a founder of Wired magazine and the Industry Standard, wasn't the first person to figure this out. But he did find a way to describe the digital crystal ball better than anyone else had. He called it "the database of intentions."

The collective history of Web searches, he wrote on his blog in late 2003, was "a place holder for the intentions of humankind — a massive database of desires, needs, wants, and likes that can be discovered, subpoenaed, archived, tracked, and exploited to all sorts of ends."

"Such a beast has never before existed in the history of culture, but is almost guaranteed to grow exponentially from this day forward," he wrote. It was a nice idea, but for most of us it was just an abstraction. The search companies did offer glimpses into the data with bare-bones (and sanitized) rankings of the most popular search terms, and Yahoo sold more detailed information to advertisers who wanted to do a better job of selling their products online. But there was no way for most people to dig into the data themselves.

A few weeks ago, Google took a big step toward changing this — toward making the database of intentions visible to the world — by creating a product called Google Trends. It allows you to check the relative popularity of any search term, to look at how it has changed over the last couple years and to see the cities where the term is most popular. And it's totally addictive.

YOU can see, for example, that the volume of Google searches would have done an excellent job predicting this year's "American Idol," with Taylor Hicks (the champion) being searched more often than Katharine McPhee (second place), who in turn was searched more often than Elliot Yamin (third place). Then you can compare Hillary Clinton and Al Gore and discover that she was more popular than he for almost all of the last two years, until he surged past her in April and stayed there.

Thanks to Google Trends, the mayor of Elmhurst, Ill., a Chicago suburb, has had to explain why his city devotes more of its Web searches to "sex" than any other in the United States (because it doesn't have strip clubs or pornography shops, he gamely told The Chicago Sun-Times). On Mr. Battelle's blog, somebody claiming to own an apparel store posted a message saying that it was stocking less Von Dutch clothing and more Ed Hardy because of recent search trends.(A disclosure: The New York Times Company owns a stake in Mr. Battelle's latest Internet company, Federated Media Publishing.)

It's the connection to marketing that turns the database of intentions from a curiosity into a real economic phenomenon. For now, Google Trends is still a blunt tool. It shows only graphs, not actual numbers, and its data is always about a month out of date. The company will never fully pull back the curtain, I'm sure, because the data is a valuable competitive tool that helps Google decide which online ads should appear at the top of your computer screen, among other things. .

But Google does plan to keep adding to Trends, and other companies will probably come up with their own versions as well. Already, more than a million analyses are being done some days on Google Trends, said Marissa Mayer, the vice president for search at Google.

When these tools get good enough, you can see how the business of marketing may start to change. As soon as a company begins an advertising campaign, it will be able to get feedback from an enormous online focus group and then tweak its message accordingly.

I've found Pepsi's recent Super Bowl commercials — the ones centered around P. Diddy — to be nearly devoid of wit, but that just shows you how good my marketing instincts are. As it turns out, the only recent times that Pepsi has been a more popular search term in this country than Coke have been right after a Super Bowl. This year's well-reviewed Burger King paean to Busby Berkeley, on the other hand, barely moved the needle inside the database of intentions.

Hal R. Varian, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, who advises Google, predicts that online metrics like this one have put Madison Avenue on the verge of a quantitative revolution, similar to the one Wall Street went through in the 1970's when it began parsing market data much more finely. "People have hunches, people have prejudices, people have ideas," said Mr. Varian, who also writes for this newspaper about once a month. "Once you have data, you can test them out and make informed decisions going forward."

There are certainly limitations to this kind of analysis. It's most telling for products that are bought, or at least researched, online, a category that does not include Coke, Pepsi or Whoppers. And even with clothing or cars, interest doesn't always translate into sales. But there is no such thing as a perfect yardstick in marketing, and the database of intentions clearly offers something new.

In the 19th century, a government engineer whose work became the seed of I.B.M. designed a punch-card machine that allowed for a mechanically run Census, which eventually told companies who their customers were. The 20th century brought public opinion polls that showed what those customers were thinking. This century's great technology can give companies, and anyone else, a window into what people are actually doing, in real time or even ahead of time.

You might find that a little creepy, but I bet that you'll also check it out sometime.

E-mail: leonhardt@nytimes.com

Tuesday, July 4, 2006

Because the public doesn't matter or because they suck at it?

What is the reason for the following:

http://www.royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=4861

Latest press releases

Research pressure in universities is barrier to scientists communicating work to public
29 Jun 2006

A 'research driven' culture in British universities is a key barrier to scientists communicating their work with the public according to a major study published today (Thursday 29 June 2006) by the Royal Society , with the support of Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust.

According to the scientists surveyed for the report the pressure to publish research, attract funding to their departments and build careers on 'hard research' means public engagement work, such as debates, dialogues or exhibitions, media appearances or outreach activities with schools, is not a priority. The need to spend more time on research was the top reason, cited by 64 per cent of respondents, stopping scientists getting more engaged with science communication work.

Scientists highlighted that public engagement activities were seen by colleagues as being bad for their careers. Some said that it was seen as being done by those who were 'not good enough' for an academic career, that it was 'light' or 'fluffy' and risked reinforcing negative stereotypes for women involved in these activities.

However, in spite of this, 45 per cent of respondents said that they would like to spend more time engaging with the non-specialist public about science. 74 per cent of those surveyed reported that they have taken part in at least one science communication or public engagement activity in the past 12 months.

Sir David Wallace, vice president of the Royal Society, who chaired the study's consultative group, said: "It is encouraging that so many scientists have, despite all the perceived barriers, taken part in science communication activities. The report shows that we need to find ways to make it easier for scientists to engage in a genuine dialogue with the public so that those outside of the scientific community can better understand, support, and indeed challenge, the science that is being undertaken in our universities while, at the same time, helping scientists understand public interests and concerns. This must clearly happen in the context of allowing scientists to carry on conducting excellent research while progressing their careers. And we recognise that it is not desirable to require all scientists to undertake public engagement work.

"While the report identified that research pressures are a factor in discouraging involvement with science communication activities we should be careful not to paint an overly simplistic picture of cause and effect'. We need to see the profile of this kind of work being raised within departments so that it is seen as a more integral part of a well rounded career."

The study found that generally, younger researchers, those in departments rated 5*' by the RAE, and those in research-only appointments, undertook less public engagement activity compared with senior researchers, those in departments rated 1-5 under the RAE and those in research and teaching positions.

In general, respondents to the survey felt that their participation in science communication activities would be increased more through rewards to their departments rather than to themselves as individuals. 81 per cent of scientists said bringing more money into their departments would be a key incentive. And 56 per cent of respondents said that awards or prizes for departments were important, in contrast to 39 per cent who identified awards for individuals as being important. Additionally, 76 per cent said they would be encouraged to get more involved if it helped their careers.

The aim of the study was to provide evidence for funding organisations, universities and other research institutions on which they can base a workable system to reward scientists for their efforts to become involved with public engagement activities. It involved a web-survey of 1485 research scientists in higher education institutions and 41 more detailed interviews with a cross section of respondents and other key players within science policy and science communication such as social scientists, senior managers, funders and science communicators .

Professor Colin Blakemore, speaking on behalf of Research Councils UK, said "Spreading the word about the joys and challenges of science to the public and the media is central to what we do. This report shows that we still have to convince more scientists of the importance of speaking out about their work. Public engagement is a vital part of the research process - and this report will play a crucial role in implementing the research councils' Science in Society strategy.

"Communication is particularly important in areas of practical and ethical concern about the applications of science. With rapid advances in scientific research, all scientists have to find opportunities to increase public awareness and public involvement because we cannot take public support for granted. Public engagement takes time and effort, but it helps scientists to see their own research in a broader context as well as helping to build public confidence and trust, which are essential for scientific progress.

"Through RCUK, we're encouraging scientists to begin communication work early in their careers. Through Researchers in Residence and the Perspectives poster competition, the Research Councils are providing the extra support and encouragement that young researchers need."

Clare Matterson, Wellcome Trust Director of Medicine, Society and History comments: "The public has a clear appetite for science, and this survey shows that scientists are responding well to this by increasing the amount of time they dedicate to engage directly with the public. We seem to be going in the right direction - but we cannot be complacent. The Wellcome Trust is committed to public engagement and continues to explore new and innovative ways to support dialogue between scientists and the public to foster mutual respect, understanding and trust."

Dr Rama Thirunamachandran, Director of Research and Knowledge Transfer at the Higher Education Funding Council for England, said: This important study indicates a considerable degree of willingness by scientists to spend more time engaging with the non-specialist public given the right incentives. We are using the results of the study to inform a co-ordinated approach with the Research Councils and other funders to provide better recognition, support and reward for public engagement activities in universities and colleges. In developing this approach we will wish to ensure that all subjects and a wide range of activities including teaching and research, are represented.'

© Royal Society copyright 2006
Dr. Ian D. Graham appointed Vice-President of Knowledge Translation at CIHR

OTTAWA, June 29 /CNW Telbec/ - Dr. Alan Bernstein, President of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), announced today the appointment of Dr. Ian D. Graham as incoming Vice-President of Knowledge Translation at CIHR. This appointment is effective July 10, 2006.

"Dr. Graham is a welcome addition to the CIHR executive team," said Dr. Bernstein. "His accomplishments in knowledge translation will help CIHR ensure that it is fulfilling its mandate in this important area."

Dr. Graham is Associate Professor in the School of Nursing, University of Ottawa and Senior Social Scientist and Associate Director of the Clinical Epidemiology Program of the Ottawa Health Research Institute. He holds cross-appointments in the Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology & Community Medicine and is an adjunct professor in the School of Nursing at Queen's University. Dr. Graham obtained a PhD in medical sociology from McGill University, a Master of Arts degree in sociology from the University of Victoria, and a Bachelor of Arts degree with 1st class honours in sociology from McGill University.

"I am thrilled to have the opportunity to serve the health research community and all Canadians by helping research evidence make its way into the health system," said Dr. Graham. "I look forward to working with colleagues in disciplines that span the breadth of health research. Together we can build on the tremendous progress CIHR has already made in the area of knowledge translation."

Dr. Graham's research has largely focused on knowledge translation (the process of research use) and conducting applied research on strategies to increase implementation of research findings and evidence-based practice. Specific projects have related to the adaptation, implementation, and quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines, as well as the uptake of guidelines and decision support tools by practitioners.

Dr. Graham is also the author of over 140 articles in peer-reviewed literature and a book titled "Episiotomy: Challenging Obstetric Interventions."

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) is the Government of Canada's agency for health research. CIHR's mission is to create new scientific knowledge and to catalyze its translation into improved health, more effective health services and products, and a strengthened Canadian health care system. Composed of 13 Institutes, CIHR provides leadership and support to close to 10,000 health researchers and trainees across Canada. www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca

ShareThis