BP 465-510 emission filter

[Rob Palmer]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hello all -
I find this an interesting discussion from two standpoints.
1) do we need yet another Facebook specific to scientists?  That is  
what ORCID seems like to me.  Isn't LinkedIn sufficient?  As Peng  
noted, If we all have embraced LinkedIn (embraced does not describe my  
feelings, but I am listed), doesn't that mean anyone who would be  
interested in being on ORCID isn't already on LinkedIn?  How many of  
these things are needed?  It would seem the answer is "the number that  
can be supported by profitable business models".  Science as business  
- certainly true for many (and for good reason) but not for me or for  
most of my colleagues.
2) What is the business model here?  I am truly clueless about this -  
I can't understand how Facebook or LinkedIn make money.  I don't even  
use Facebook (have yet to suffer other than not being able to enter a  
couple of contests), and I simply tune out all the extraneous gibble  
(adverts/sidebars/etc) on sites just like I get up from the coach  
during television commercials.  I even have a program that removes a  
lot of that junk automatically, akin to TIVOing through the  
commercials.  I guess somebody reads that stuff and even follows up to  
the point that it is beneficial for the advertiser.  Also, sites seems  
now to be making some money directly by offering some sort of paid  
"premium access", which generally cuts down on the nonsense you have  
to put up with to get to the information you really want (as opposed  
to providing services unavailable to the great unwashed).  Does any of  
that money go to the advertisers?
Rob

On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:51 AM, George McNamara wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I disagree with your assessment that my message was "really  
> spamming". For one thing, most of the jobs I've had have been thanks  
> to networking. Linkedin helps with that. I came across ORCID because  
> of the editorial in Nature - a journal that most of the  
> microscopists here would give their 20x/0.8 NA lens to publish in.
>
> As for profit vs "non-profit" - a couple of comments:
>
> 1. I believe addgene.org and ATCC were set up to be non-profits.  
> Depositing plasmids and cells, respectively, at central distribution  
> sites (companies) seems much more efficient than every lab sending  
> requests and/or stuff all over (for space reasons, I won't comment  
> about MTAs).
>
> 2. I worked at Applied Spectral Imaging Inc for ~2.5 years. The CEO  
> was Robert Buckwald - a serial entrepreneur. He had a great line: "A  
> company's moral obligation is to make a profit". I believe from his  
> perspective that a "non-profit company" is an oxymoron.
>
> As for Facebook - I don't use it. However, I do use Microsoft  
> Windows and IE (and wish it was better) and Google (search, maps,  
> Chrome) every day, and Microsoft Word and Excel, Adobe Photoshop,  
> and Molecular Devices MetaMorph often. Also Microsoft ICE (image  
> composite editor - a no charge image stitcher) occasionally. I am  
> generally impressed by Google search, even though I am not paying  
> for its access directly,
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> On 1/29/2013 4:06 AM, Mark Cannell wrote:
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> *****
>>
>> It's business model is stated to be NPO -but it is incorporated.  
>> The profit can be paid to the originators in the form of executive  
>> remuneration to zero the accounts. Until it gets sold… There is no  
>> difference between this and (say) Facebook that I can see.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On 29/01/2013, at 8:52 AM, Peng Xi<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>> *****
>>>
>>> Change will take place -- whether you deny or embrace it. This  
>>> time, in
>>> research ID and the way we publish.
>>> Like many people don't like the idea of cell phone -- they regard  
>>> this more
>>> like a leash to kill your freedom, the beauty of connecting people  
>>> (with a
>>> phone number) is there. Of course, you don't have to remeber a  
>>> series of
>>> numbers; you still call people John Smith.
>>> If we have accepted Linkedin and ResearchGate, both run by for  
>>> profit
>>> companies (well I am not so sure about ResearchGate), then why do  
>>> we deny a
>>> NPO? :)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peng Xi
>>> Ph. D.    Associate Professor
>>> Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering
>>> Peking University, Beijing, China
>>> Tel: [phone]
>>> Email: [hidden email]
>>> http://bme.pku.edu.cn/~xipeng
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Mark Cannell<[hidden email]
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> *****
>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>> *****
>>>>
>>>> Dear Group
>>>>
>>>> This message is really spamming. Let us be quite clear ORCID Inc.  
>>>> has
>>>> cleverly hoodwinked you and others to providing it information of
>>>> commercial value as well as placing cookies on your computer. The  
>>>> benefits
>>>> or needs of a unique researcher ID are unclear and frankly I  
>>>> don't like the
>>>> idea of reducing human identities to a number. I will boycott  
>>>> this service
>>>> and advise everyone else to do the same.
>>>>
>>>> There is already research gate and linked in and this is just  
>>>> another
>>>> company exploiting our good will for dubious benefit.
>>>>
>>>> My 2c.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 29/01/2013, at 2:25 AM, George McNamara<[hidden email]
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> *****
>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>>> *****
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Confocal Listserv,
>>>>>
>>>>> The January 3, 2013 Nature has two editorials of interest. the  
>>>>> first is
>>>>>
>>>> on ORCID:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.orcid.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> "And here is where last year's launch of the Open Researcher and
>>>>>
>>>> Contributor ID (ORCID) facility is to be welcomed. The core  
>>>> function of
>>>> ORCID --- a community collaboration (see go.nature.com/sy3qnp)  
>>>> --- is to
>>>> assign every researcher a number and a web page, thereby  
>>>> providing a unique
>>>> identifier and so disambiguation. The web page enables the  
>>>> researcher to
>>>> record their contributions: papers they have published and --- a  
>>>> facility
>>>> to come --- their research grants and patents. Nature journals  
>>>> authors can
>>>> link their ORCID to their account in our manuscript submission  
>>>> and tracking
>>>> system, and we will soon be publishing authors' ORCIDs in papers.  
>>>> (Readers
>>>> can register for ORCID here: https://orcid.org/register; see also  
>>>> Nature
>>>> 485, 564; 2012.) ... That is why Nature and the Nature journals  
>>>> have
>>>> introduced two ways in which referees can be given credit. Any  
>>>> referee who,
>>>> in a given year, has refereed three or more papers for any of the  
>>>> journals
>>>> will receive a letter acknowledging their contribution and a free
>>>> subscription to their choice of one of the journals."
>>>>
>>>>> My ORCID is 0000-0003-4155-0976
>>>>>
>>>>> I will add my ORCID to my NIH Biosketch. I already crosslinked  
>>>>> my ORCID
>>>>>
>>>> page with my linkedin profile   www.linkedin.com/in/georgemcnamara
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ***
>>>>>
>>>>> The second - likely more important! - is on lab safety:
>>>>>
>>>>> "one-third of scientists say that safety is more important to  
>>>>> them than
>>>>>
>>>> it is to their colleagues, with only  2% voting the other way.  
>>>> Although
>>>> most respondents say that their labs are safe places to work, they
>>>> simultaneously report behaviour, such as frequent lone working,  
>>>> that seems
>>>> to belie that confidence ...  almost half the respondents  
>>>> reported being
>>>> injured in the lab"
>>>>
>>>>> Which reminds me: "Do not look at laser with remaining eye!".
>>>>>
>>>>> Happy 2013,
>>>>>
>>>>> George
>>>>>
>>>>> p.s. I don't know if this web links to the Nature Editorial will  
>>>>> work
>>>>>
>>>> for everyone (good luck)
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nature.com/news/in-search-of-credit-1.12117
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.12117!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/493005a.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>>> School of Physiology&   Pharmacology
>>>> Medical Sciences Building
>>>> University of Bristol
>>>> Bristol
>>>> BS8 1TD UK
>>>>
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>> Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>> School of Physiology&   Pharmacology
>> Medical Sciences Building
>> University of Bristol
>> Bristol
>> BS8 1TD UK
>>
>> [hidden email]
>>
>>

Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
Microbial Receptors Section
Laboratory of Cell and Developmental Biology
Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
Bldg 30, Room 207
30 Convent Drive
Bethesda MD 20892
ph 301-594-0025
fax [phone]

[Guy Cox-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

And what - so Google Scholar is not out to make a profit?  I've by and large agreed with your previous posts on this topic but this is turning it topsy-turvy.

                                                  Guy

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mark Cannell
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013 12:15 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: ORCID Researcher ID ... found in Nature January 3, 2013 Editorial (2 parts, both useful)

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

As a simple existing alternative why not just use the URL to your research gate profile (or google scholar profile etc.).

Cheers

On 29/01/2013, at 1:07 PM, Mark Cannell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hi George
>
> I appreciate it was not your intent to promote a for profit company. But most people don't understand that a not for profit (NOP) is not a charity. NOPs can make a lot of money for their creators, they just don't have share holders (yet -and that is a common exit strategy). In a company such as this it is the exit strategy that drives their creation and in this case they will use millions of hours of scientists time to generate their value and in exchange give what, a number? This is simply not acceptable IMHO. If disambiguation of researcher identity has suddenly become such an issue I would expect the major funders to address this... Frankly I think this need for disambiguation is rubbish (do you think that grants will suddenly not require you to identify your outputs etc) but is is certainly a company that looks to make someone rich in a few years... when they've embedded their id's everywhere.
>
> Cheers Mark
>
>
> On 29/01/2013, at 11:51 AM, George McNamara <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> *****
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> I disagree with your assessment that my message was "really spamming". For one thing, most of the jobs I've had have been thanks to networking. Linkedin helps with that. I came across ORCID because of the editorial in Nature - a journal that most of the microscopists here would give their 20x/0.8 NA lens to publish in.
>>
>> As for profit vs "non-profit" - a couple of comments:
>>
>> 1. I believe addgene.org and ATCC were set up to be non-profits. Depositing plasmids and cells, respectively, at central distribution sites (companies) seems much more efficient than every lab sending requests and/or stuff all over (for space reasons, I won't comment about MTAs).
>>
>> 2. I worked at Applied Spectral Imaging Inc for ~2.5 years. The CEO was Robert Buckwald - a serial entrepreneur. He had a great line: "A company's moral obligation is to make a profit". I believe from his perspective that a "non-profit company" is an oxymoron.
>>
>> As for Facebook - I don't use it. However, I do use Microsoft Windows and IE (and wish it was better) and Google (search, maps, Chrome) every day, and Microsoft Word and Excel, Adobe Photoshop, and Molecular Devices MetaMorph often. Also Microsoft ICE (image composite editor - a no charge image stitcher) occasionally. I am generally impressed by Google search, even though I am not paying for its access directly,
>>
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/29/2013 4:06 AM, Mark Cannell wrote:
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>> *****
>>>
>>> It's business model is stated to be NPO -but it is incorporated. The profit can be paid to the originators in the form of executive remuneration to zero the accounts. Until it gets sold... There is no difference between this and (say) Facebook that I can see.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> On 29/01/2013, at 8:52 AM, Peng Xi<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> *****
>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>> *****
>>>>
>>>> Change will take place -- whether you deny or embrace it. This time, in
>>>> research ID and the way we publish.
>>>> Like many people don't like the idea of cell phone -- they regard this more
>>>> like a leash to kill your freedom, the beauty of connecting people (with a
>>>> phone number) is there. Of course, you don't have to remeber a series of
>>>> numbers; you still call people John Smith.
>>>> If we have accepted Linkedin and ResearchGate, both run by for profit
>>>> companies (well I am not so sure about ResearchGate), then why do we deny a
>>>> NPO? :)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Peng Xi
>>>> Ph. D.    Associate Professor
>>>> Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering
>>>> Peking University, Beijing, China
>>>> Tel: [phone]
>>>> Email: [hidden email]
>>>> http://bme.pku.edu.cn/~xipeng
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Mark Cannell<[hidden email]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> *****
>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>>> *****
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Group
>>>>>
>>>>> This message is really spamming. Let us be quite clear ORCID Inc. has
>>>>> cleverly hoodwinked you and others to providing it information of
>>>>> commercial value as well as placing cookies on your computer. The benefits
>>>>> or needs of a unique researcher ID are unclear and frankly I don't like the
>>>>> idea of reducing human identities to a number. I will boycott this service
>>>>> and advise everyone else to do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is already research gate and linked in and this is just another
>>>>> company exploiting our good will for dubious benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>> My 2c.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 29/01/2013, at 2:25 AM, George McNamara<[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Confocal Listserv,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The January 3, 2013 Nature has two editorials of interest. the first is
>>>>>>
>>>>> on ORCID:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.orcid.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "And here is where last year's launch of the Open Researcher and
>>>>>>
>>>>> Contributor ID (ORCID) facility is to be welcomed. The core function of
>>>>> ORCID --- a community collaboration (see go.nature.com/sy3qnp) --- is to
>>>>> assign every researcher a number and a web page, thereby providing a unique
>>>>> identifier and so disambiguation. The web page enables the researcher to
>>>>> record their contributions: papers they have published and --- a facility
>>>>> to come --- their research grants and patents. Nature journals authors can
>>>>> link their ORCID to their account in our manuscript submission and tracking
>>>>> system, and we will soon be publishing authors' ORCIDs in papers. (Readers
>>>>> can register for ORCID here: https://orcid.org/register; see also Nature
>>>>> 485, 564; 2012.) ... That is why Nature and the Nature journals have
>>>>> introduced two ways in which referees can be given credit. Any referee who,
>>>>> in a given year, has refereed three or more papers for any of the journals
>>>>> will receive a letter acknowledging their contribution and a free
>>>>> subscription to their choice of one of the journals."
>>>>>
>>>>>> My ORCID is 0000-0003-4155-0976
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will add my ORCID to my NIH Biosketch. I already crosslinked my ORCID
>>>>>>
>>>>> page with my linkedin profile   www.linkedin.com/in/georgemcnamara
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The second - likely more important! - is on lab safety:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "one-third of scientists say that safety is more important to them than
>>>>>>
>>>>> it is to their colleagues, with only  2% voting the other way. Although
>>>>> most respondents say that their labs are safe places to work, they
>>>>> simultaneously report behaviour, such as frequent lone working, that seems
>>>>> to belie that confidence ...  almost half the respondents reported being
>>>>> injured in the lab"
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which reminds me: "Do not look at laser with remaining eye!".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Happy 2013,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> George
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p.s. I don't know if this web links to the Nature Editorial will work
>>>>>>
>>>>> for everyone (good luck)
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nature.com/news/in-search-of-credit-1.12117
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.12117!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/493005a.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>>>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>>>> School of Physiology&   Pharmacology
>>>>> Medical Sciences Building
>>>>> University of Bristol
>>>>> Bristol
>>>>> BS8 1TD UK
>>>>>
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>> School of Physiology&   Pharmacology
>>> Medical Sciences Building
>>> University of Bristol
>>> Bristol
>>> BS8 1TD UK
>>>
>>> [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>
> Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
> School of Physiology&  Pharmacology
> Medical Sciences Building
> University of Bristol
> Bristol
> BS8 1TD UK
>
> [hidden email]

Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
School of Physiology&  Pharmacology
Medical Sciences Building
University of Bristol
Bristol
BS8 1TD UK

[hidden email]

[Oshel, Philip Eugene]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

You mention the business model in your question: advertising. Selling
the ads on the site (the "extraneous gibble") and "click-throughs".
Click on an ad, and get sent to the advertiser's site. They then pay
ORCID/Linked-In/Facebook/Google/etc so many cents for every
click-through. Enough so that sites like Google and Facebook make a few
billion dollars a year.
Plus, they track users and sell that information to vendors and
advertisers. Best way to deal with this is to use private browsing and
clear all data (cookies, flash cookies, caches, etc. - if you have
Safari, look at list that comes up when you click on "Reset Safari")
when leaving a site.

Phil

On 01/29/2013 09:18 , Rob Palmer wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hello all -
> I find this an interesting discussion from two standpoints.
> 1) do we need yet another Facebook specific to scientists? That is what
> ORCID seems like to me. Isn't LinkedIn sufficient? As Peng noted, If we
> all have embraced LinkedIn (embraced does not describe my feelings, but
> I am listed), doesn't that mean anyone who would be interested in being
> on ORCID isn't already on LinkedIn? How many of these things are needed?
> It would seem the answer is "the number that can be supported by
> profitable business models". Science as business - certainly true for
> many (and for good reason) but not for me or for most of my colleagues.
> 2) What is the business model here? I am truly clueless about this - I
> can't understand how Facebook or LinkedIn make money. I don't even use
> Facebook (have yet to suffer other than not being able to enter a couple
> of contests), and I simply tune out all the extraneous gibble
> (adverts/sidebars/etc) on sites just like I get up from the coach during
> television commercials. I even have a program that removes a lot of that
> junk automatically, akin to TIVOing through the commercials. I guess
> somebody reads that stuff and even follows up to the point that it is
> beneficial for the advertiser. Also, sites seems now to be making some
> money directly by offering some sort of paid "premium access", which
> generally cuts down on the nonsense you have to put up with to get to
> the information you really want (as opposed to providing services
> unavailable to the great unwashed). Does any of that money go to the
> advertisers?
> Rob
>
> On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:51 AM, George McNamara wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> *****
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> I disagree with your assessment that my message was "really spamming".
>> For one thing, most of the jobs I've had have been thanks to
>> networking. Linkedin helps with that. I came across ORCID because of
>> the editorial in Nature - a journal that most of the microscopists
>> here would give their 20x/0.8 NA lens to publish in.
>>
>> As for profit vs "non-profit" - a couple of comments:
>>
>> 1. I believe addgene.org and ATCC were set up to be non-profits.
>> Depositing plasmids and cells, respectively, at central distribution
>> sites (companies) seems much more efficient than every lab sending
>> requests and/or stuff all over (for space reasons, I won't comment
>> about MTAs).
>>
>> 2. I worked at Applied Spectral Imaging Inc for ~2.5 years. The CEO
>> was Robert Buckwald - a serial entrepreneur. He had a great line: "A
>> company's moral obligation is to make a profit". I believe from his
>> perspective that a "non-profit company" is an oxymoron.
>>
>> As for Facebook - I don't use it. However, I do use Microsoft Windows
>> and IE (and wish it was better) and Google (search, maps, Chrome)
>> every day, and Microsoft Word and Excel, Adobe Photoshop, and
>> Molecular Devices MetaMorph often. Also Microsoft ICE (image composite
>> editor - a no charge image stitcher) occasionally. I am generally
>> impressed by Google search, even though I am not paying for its access
>> directly,
>>
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/29/2013 4:06 AM, Mark Cannell wrote:
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>> *****
>>>
>>> It's business model is stated to be NPO -but it is incorporated. The
>>> profit can be paid to the originators in the form of executive
>>> remuneration to zero the accounts. Until it gets sold… There is no
>>> difference between this and (say) Facebook that I can see.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> On 29/01/2013, at 8:52 AM, Peng Xi<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> *****
>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>> *****
>>>>
>>>> Change will take place -- whether you deny or embrace it. This time, in
>>>> research ID and the way we publish.
>>>> Like many people don't like the idea of cell phone -- they regard
>>>> this more
>>>> like a leash to kill your freedom, the beauty of connecting people
>>>> (with a
>>>> phone number) is there. Of course, you don't have to remeber a
>>>> series of
>>>> numbers; you still call people John Smith.
>>>> If we have accepted Linkedin and ResearchGate, both run by for profit
>>>> companies (well I am not so sure about ResearchGate), then why do we
>>>> deny a
>>>> NPO? :)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Peng Xi
>>>> Ph. D. Associate Professor
>>>> Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering
>>>> Peking University, Beijing, China
>>>> Tel: [phone]
>>>> Email: [hidden email]
>>>> http://bme.pku.edu.cn/~xipeng
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Mark
>>>> Cannell<[hidden email]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> *****
>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>>> *****
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Group
>>>>>
>>>>> This message is really spamming. Let us be quite clear ORCID Inc. has
>>>>> cleverly hoodwinked you and others to providing it information of
>>>>> commercial value as well as placing cookies on your computer. The
>>>>> benefits
>>>>> or needs of a unique researcher ID are unclear and frankly I don't
>>>>> like the
>>>>> idea of reducing human identities to a number. I will boycott this
>>>>> service
>>>>> and advise everyone else to do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is already research gate and linked in and this is just another
>>>>> company exploiting our good will for dubious benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>> My 2c.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 29/01/2013, at 2:25 AM, George McNamara<[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Confocal Listserv,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The January 3, 2013 Nature has two editorials of interest. the
>>>>>> first is
>>>>>>
>>>>> on ORCID:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.orcid.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "And here is where last year's launch of the Open Researcher and
>>>>>>
>>>>> Contributor ID (ORCID) facility is to be welcomed. The core
>>>>> function of
>>>>> ORCID --- a community collaboration (see go.nature.com/sy3qnp) ---
>>>>> is to
>>>>> assign every researcher a number and a web page, thereby providing
>>>>> a unique
>>>>> identifier and so disambiguation. The web page enables the
>>>>> researcher to
>>>>> record their contributions: papers they have published and --- a
>>>>> facility
>>>>> to come --- their research grants and patents. Nature journals
>>>>> authors can
>>>>> link their ORCID to their account in our manuscript submission and
>>>>> tracking
>>>>> system, and we will soon be publishing authors' ORCIDs in papers.
>>>>> (Readers
>>>>> can register for ORCID here: https://orcid.org/register; see also
>>>>> Nature
>>>>> 485, 564; 2012.) ... That is why Nature and the Nature journals have
>>>>> introduced two ways in which referees can be given credit. Any
>>>>> referee who,
>>>>> in a given year, has refereed three or more papers for any of the
>>>>> journals
>>>>> will receive a letter acknowledging their contribution and a free
>>>>> subscription to their choice of one of the journals."
>>>>>
>>>>>> My ORCID is 0000-0003-4155-0976
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will add my ORCID to my NIH Biosketch. I already crosslinked my
>>>>>> ORCID
>>>>>>
>>>>> page with my linkedin profile www.linkedin.com/in/georgemcnamara
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The second - likely more important! - is on lab safety:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "one-third of scientists say that safety is more important to them
>>>>>> than
>>>>>>
>>>>> it is to their colleagues, with only 2% voting the other way. Although
>>>>> most respondents say that their labs are safe places to work, they
>>>>> simultaneously report behaviour, such as frequent lone working,
>>>>> that seems
>>>>> to belie that confidence ... almost half the respondents reported
>>>>> being
>>>>> injured in the lab"
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which reminds me: "Do not look at laser with remaining eye!".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Happy 2013,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> George
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p.s. I don't know if this web links to the Nature Editorial will work
>>>>>>
>>>>> for everyone (good luck)
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nature.com/news/in-search-of-credit-1.12117
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.12117!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/493005a.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>>>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>>>> School of Physiology& Pharmacology
>>>>> Medical Sciences Building
>>>>> University of Bristol
>>>>> Bristol
>>>>> BS8 1TD UK
>>>>>
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Mark B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>> School of Physiology& Pharmacology
>>> Medical Sciences Building
>>> University of Bristol
>>> Bristol
>>> BS8 1TD UK
>>>
>>> [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>
> Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
> Microbial Receptors Section
> Laboratory of Cell and Developmental Biology
> Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
> Bldg 30, Room 207
> 30 Convent Drive
> Bethesda MD 20892
> ph 301-594-0025
> fax [phone]
> .
>

--
Philip Oshel
Microscopy Facility Supervisor
Biology Department
024C Brooks Hall
Central Michigan University
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859
[phone]

[Barbara Foster]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi,

As you all know, we often do end-user studies to
keep a finger on the pulse of our industry.  We
did a Social Media study about 15 months ago (I
know... ancient history in the world of social
media... another is planned for the near future)
and found that microscopists really depend on
their own listservers (like this one) as well as
LinkedIn.  Facebook, etc., were WAY down the list.

ORCID appears to be a way of gaining recognition
and networking with peers via an identification
code.  It links to LinkedIn and Scopus... So the
question is: is this helpful in automatically
updating and linking or is it just another
intrusion on our privacy.  That is a truly individual decision.

Finally: Social media can be both a blessing and
a bother.  I have friends and family who post to
FB 10 times a day ... and as much as I love them,
I've disconnected from all of that.  On the other
hand, actively networking with fellow scientists
has always been a keystone for us.  Just
remember: each of us has control of the "Off"
button here, so we can connect or disconnect as
we see fit.  Check out ORCID and, if you think
that getting an ID that will help you link to
research and other related activities in your
area of interest, go for it.  Otherwise, keep things simple.

Hope this was helpful.
Barbara Foster, President & Chief Consultant
Microscopy/Microscopy Education*
www.MicroscopyEducation.com

*A subsidiary of The Microscopy & Imaging Place, Inc.
7101 Royal Glen Trail, Suite A
McKinney, TX 75070
P: 972-924-5310
F: 214-592-0277

MME is currently scheduling courses for the Fall
2013. Call us today for a free training evaluation.



At 09:28 AM 1/29/2013, Philip Oshel wrote:

>*****
>To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>*****
>
>You mention the business model in your question:
>advertising. Selling the ads on the site (the
>"extraneous gibble") and "click-throughs". Click
>on an ad, and get sent to the advertiser's site.
>They then pay
>ORCID/Linked-In/Facebook/Google/etc so many
>cents for every click-through. Enough so that
>sites like Google and Facebook make a few billion dollars a year.
>Plus, they track users and sell that information
>to vendors and advertisers. Best way to deal
>with this is to use private browsing and clear
>all data (cookies, flash cookies, caches, etc. -
>if you have Safari, look at list that comes up
>when you click on "Reset Safari") when leaving a site.
>
>Phil
>
>On 01/29/2013 09:18 , Rob Palmer wrote:
>>*****
>>To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>*****
>>
>>Hello all -
>>I find this an interesting discussion from two standpoints.
>>1) do we need yet another Facebook specific to scientists? That is what
>>ORCID seems like to me. Isn't LinkedIn sufficient? As Peng noted, If we
>>all have embraced LinkedIn (embraced does not describe my feelings, but
>>I am listed), doesn't that mean anyone who would be interested in being
>>on ORCID isn't already on LinkedIn? How many of these things are needed?
>>It would seem the answer is "the number that can be supported by
>>profitable business models". Science as business - certainly true for
>>many (and for good reason) but not for me or for most of my colleagues.
>>2) What is the business model here? I am truly clueless about this - I
>>can't understand how Facebook or LinkedIn make money. I don't even use
>>Facebook (have yet to suffer other than not being able to enter a couple
>>of contests), and I simply tune out all the extraneous gibble
>>(adverts/sidebars/etc) on sites just like I get up from the coach during
>>television commercials. I even have a program that removes a lot of that
>>junk automatically, akin to TIVOing through the commercials. I guess
>>somebody reads that stuff and even follows up to the point that it is
>>beneficial for the advertiser. Also, sites seems now to be making some
>>money directly by offering some sort of paid "premium access", which
>>generally cuts down on the nonsense you have to put up with to get to
>>the information you really want (as opposed to providing services
>>unavailable to the great unwashed). Does any of that money go to the
>>advertisers?
>>Rob
>>
>>On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:51 AM, George McNamara wrote:
>>
>>>*****
>>>To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>*****
>>>
>>>Hi Mark,
>>>
>>>I disagree with your assessment that my message was "really spamming".
>>>For one thing, most of the jobs I've had have been thanks to
>>>networking. Linkedin helps with that. I came across ORCID because of
>>>the editorial in Nature - a journal that most of the microscopists
>>>here would give their 20x/0.8 NA lens to publish in.
>>>
>>>As for profit vs "non-profit" - a couple of comments:
>>>
>>>1. I believe addgene.org and ATCC were set up to be non-profits.
>>>Depositing plasmids and cells, respectively, at central distribution
>>>sites (companies) seems much more efficient than every lab sending
>>>requests and/or stuff all over (for space reasons, I won't comment
>>>about MTAs).
>>>
>>>2. I worked at Applied Spectral Imaging Inc for ~2.5 years. The CEO
>>>was Robert Buckwald - a serial entrepreneur. He had a great line: "A
>>>company's moral obligation is to make a profit". I believe from his
>>>perspective that a "non-profit company" is an oxymoron.
>>>
>>>As for Facebook - I don't use it. However, I do use Microsoft Windows
>>>and IE (and wish it was better) and Google (search, maps, Chrome)
>>>every day, and Microsoft Word and Excel, Adobe Photoshop, and
>>>Molecular Devices MetaMorph often. Also Microsoft ICE (image composite
>>>editor - a no charge image stitcher) occasionally. I am generally
>>>impressed by Google search, even though I am not paying for its access
>>>directly,
>>>
>>>
>>>George
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 1/29/2013 4:06 AM, Mark Cannell wrote:
>>>>*****
>>>>To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>>*****
>>>>
>>>>It's business model is stated to be NPO -but it is incorporated. The
>>>>profit can be paid to the originators in the form of executive
>>>>remuneration to zero the accounts. Until it gets sold… There is no
>>>>difference between this and (say) Facebook that I can see.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers
>>>>
>>>>On 29/01/2013, at 8:52 AM, Peng Xi<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>*****
>>>>>To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>>>*****
>>>>>
>>>>>Change will take place -- whether you deny or embrace it. This time, in
>>>>>research ID and the way we publish.
>>>>>Like many people don't like the idea of cell phone -- they regard
>>>>>this more
>>>>>like a leash to kill your freedom, the beauty of connecting people
>>>>>(with a
>>>>>phone number) is there. Of course, you don't have to remeber a
>>>>>series of
>>>>>numbers; you still call people John Smith.
>>>>>If we have accepted Linkedin and ResearchGate, both run by for profit
>>>>>companies (well I am not so sure about ResearchGate), then why do we
>>>>>deny a
>>>>>NPO? :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>Peng Xi
>>>>>Ph. D. Associate Professor
>>>>>Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering
>>>>>Peking University, Beijing, China
>>>>>Tel: [phone]
>>>>>Email: [hidden email]
>>>>>http://bme.pku.edu.cn/~xipeng
>>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Mark
>>>>>Cannell<[hidden email]>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>*****
>>>>>>To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>>>>*****
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dear Group
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This message is really spamming. Let us be quite clear ORCID Inc. has
>>>>>>cleverly hoodwinked you and others to providing it information of
>>>>>>commercial value as well as placing cookies on your computer. The
>>>>>>benefits
>>>>>>or needs of a unique researcher ID are unclear and frankly I don't
>>>>>>like the
>>>>>>idea of reducing human identities to a number. I will boycott this
>>>>>>service
>>>>>>and advise everyone else to do the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is already research gate and linked in and this is just another
>>>>>>company exploiting our good will for dubious benefit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My 2c.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 29/01/2013, at 2:25 AM, George McNamara<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>*****
>>>>>>>To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>>>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>>>>>*****
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dear Confocal Listserv,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The January 3, 2013 Nature has two editorials of interest. the
>>>>>>>first is
>>>>>>on ORCID:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.orcid.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"And here is where last year's launch of the Open Researcher and
>>>>>>Contributor ID (ORCID) facility is to be welcomed. The core
>>>>>>function of
>>>>>>ORCID --- a community collaboration (see go.nature.com/sy3qnp) ---
>>>>>>is to
>>>>>>assign every researcher a number and a web page, thereby providing
>>>>>>a unique
>>>>>>identifier and so disambiguation. The web page enables the
>>>>>>researcher to
>>>>>>record their contributions: papers they have published and --- a
>>>>>>facility
>>>>>>to come --- their research grants and patents. Nature journals
>>>>>>authors can
>>>>>>link their ORCID to their account in our manuscript submission and
>>>>>>tracking
>>>>>>system, and we will soon be publishing authors' ORCIDs in papers.
>>>>>>(Readers
>>>>>>can register for ORCID here: https://orcid.org/register; see also
>>>>>>Nature
>>>>>>485, 564; 2012.) ... That is why Nature and the Nature journals have
>>>>>>introduced two ways in which referees can be given credit. Any
>>>>>>referee who,
>>>>>>in a given year, has refereed three or more papers for any of the
>>>>>>journals
>>>>>>will receive a letter acknowledging their contribution and a free
>>>>>>subscription to their choice of one of the journals."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My ORCID is 0000-0003-4155-0976
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I will add my ORCID to my NIH Biosketch. I already crosslinked my
>>>>>>>ORCID
>>>>>>page with my linkedin profile www.linkedin.com/in/georgemcnamara
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>***
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The second - likely more important! - is on lab safety:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"one-third of scientists say that safety is more important to them
>>>>>>>than
>>>>>>it is to their colleagues, with only 2% voting the other way. Although
>>>>>>most respondents say that their labs are safe places to work, they
>>>>>>simultaneously report behaviour, such as frequent lone working,
>>>>>>that seems
>>>>>>to belie that confidence ... almost half the respondents reported
>>>>>>being
>>>>>>injured in the lab"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which reminds me: "Do not look at laser with remaining eye!".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Happy 2013,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>George
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>p.s. I don't know if this web links to the Nature Editorial will work
>>>>>>for everyone (good luck)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.nature.com/news/in-search-of-credit-1.12117
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.12117!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/493005a.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>>>>>Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>>>>>School of Physiology& Pharmacology
>>>>>>Medical Sciences Building
>>>>>>University of Bristol
>>>>>>Bristol
>>>>>>BS8 1TD UK
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>Mark B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>>>Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>>>School of Physiology& Pharmacology
>>>>Medical Sciences Building
>>>>University of Bristol
>>>>Bristol
>>>>BS8 1TD UK
>>>>
>>>>[hidden email]
>>>>
>>
>>Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
>>Microbial Receptors Section
>>Laboratory of Cell and Developmental Biology
>>Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
>>Bldg 30, Room 207
>>30 Convent Drive
>>Bethesda MD 20892
>>ph 301-594-0025
>>fax [phone]
>>.
>
>--
>Philip Oshel
>Microscopy Facility Supervisor
>Biology Department
>024C Brooks Hall
>Central Michigan University
>Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859
>[phone]

[Mark Cannell-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Not for profit does not mean what you think it does…

Cheers

On 29/01/2013, at 9:09 AM, Johan Henriksson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> I was rather concerned about the spam too, and the board of ORCID is filled
> with elsevier (my favourite company!). That said, there are also people
> from PLOS and mendeley, albeit a minority. But as peng says, according to
> their website it is a non-profit organization and that is what makes me
> believe in it. That so many journals are on this makes me also think this
> will succeed, unlike earlier attempts.
>
> We already have IDs in use, our names. But it's a fragile system that
> forces me to register my articles over and over again in all systems. With
> a proper ID reference, maybe in the future I can even get married, change
> my name, and people will still find my publications? I also have the most
> common name in all of Sweden, which is not much of a help. By all means,
> this should have happen 10 years ago. The discussion of publication metrics
> is a totally separate issue, and has never been dependent on ORCID.
>
> /Johan
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Peng Xi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> *****
>>
>> Change will take place -- whether you deny or embrace it. This time, in
>> research ID and the way we publish.
>> Like many people don't like the idea of cell phone -- they regard this more
>> like a leash to kill your freedom, the beauty of connecting people (with a
>> phone number) is there. Of course, you don't have to remeber a series of
>> numbers; you still call people John Smith.
>> If we have accepted Linkedin and ResearchGate, both run by for profit
>> companies (well I am not so sure about ResearchGate), then why do we deny a
>> NPO? :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Peng Xi
>> Ph. D.    Associate Professor
>> Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering
>> Peking University, Beijing, China
>> Tel: [phone]
>> Email: [hidden email]
>> http://bme.pku.edu.cn/~xipeng
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Mark Cannell <[hidden email]
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>> *****
>>>
>>> Dear Group
>>>
>>> This message is really spamming. Let us be quite clear ORCID Inc. has
>>> cleverly hoodwinked you and others to providing it information of
>>> commercial value as well as placing cookies on your computer. The
>> benefits
>>> or needs of a unique researcher ID are unclear and frankly I don't like
>> the
>>> idea of reducing human identities to a number. I will boycott this
>> service
>>> and advise everyone else to do the same.
>>>
>>> There is already research gate and linked in and this is just another
>>> company exploiting our good will for dubious benefit.
>>>
>>> My 2c.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29/01/2013, at 2:25 AM, George McNamara <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> *****
>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>> *****
>>>>
>>>> Dear Confocal Listserv,
>>>>
>>>> The January 3, 2013 Nature has two editorials of interest. the first is
>>> on ORCID:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.orcid.org/
>>>>
>>>> "And here is where last year's launch of the Open Researcher and
>>> Contributor ID (ORCID) facility is to be welcomed. The core function of
>>> ORCID --- a community collaboration (see go.nature.com/sy3qnp) --- is to
>>> assign every researcher a number and a web page, thereby providing a
>> unique
>>> identifier and so disambiguation. The web page enables the researcher to
>>> record their contributions: papers they have published and --- a facility
>>> to come --- their research grants and patents. Nature journals authors
>> can
>>> link their ORCID to their account in our manuscript submission and
>> tracking
>>> system, and we will soon be publishing authors' ORCIDs in papers.
>> (Readers
>>> can register for ORCID here: https://orcid.org/register; see also Nature
>>> 485, 564; 2012.) ... That is why Nature and the Nature journals have
>>> introduced two ways in which referees can be given credit. Any referee
>> who,
>>> in a given year, has refereed three or more papers for any of the
>> journals
>>> will receive a letter acknowledging their contribution and a free
>>> subscription to their choice of one of the journals."
>>>>
>>>> My ORCID is 0000-0003-4155-0976
>>>>
>>>> I will add my ORCID to my NIH Biosketch. I already crosslinked my ORCID
>>> page with my linkedin profile   www.linkedin.com/in/georgemcnamara
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ***
>>>>
>>>> The second - likely more important! - is on lab safety:
>>>>
>>>> "one-third of scientists say that safety is more important to them than
>>> it is to their colleagues, with only  2% voting the other way. Although
>>> most respondents say that their labs are safe places to work, they
>>> simultaneously report behaviour, such as frequent lone working, that
>> seems
>>> to belie that confidence ...  almost half the respondents reported being
>>> injured in the lab"
>>>>
>>>> Which reminds me: "Do not look at laser with remaining eye!".
>>>>
>>>> Happy 2013,
>>>>
>>>> George
>>>>
>>>> p.s. I don't know if this web links to the Nature Editorial will work
>>> for everyone (good luck)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nature.com/news/in-search-of-credit-1.12117
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.12117!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/493005a.pdf
>>>
>>> Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>> School of Physiology&  Pharmacology
>>> Medical Sciences Building
>>> University of Bristol
>>> Bristol
>>> BS8 1TD UK
>>>
>>> [hidden email]
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Johan Henriksson, PhD
> Karolinska Institutet
> Ecobima AB - Custom solutions for life sciences
> http://www.ecobima.com  http://mahogny.areta.org  http://www.endrov.net
>
> <http://www.endrov.net>

Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
School of Physiology&  Pharmacology
Medical Sciences Building
University of Bristol
Bristol
BS8 1TD UK

[hidden email]

[Mark Cannell-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Guy

My point is that this site expects you to enter your info and for your pain adds a cookie to your computer which is gathering browsing data (why you might wonder). For me at least I've got my profile already entered in research gate and google scholar so I could use them… But make no mistake, these guys are going to take your time and give you nothing that will ever save you time (I predict). The unique id has been tried before and it flopped -this time with buy in from commerce they are pushing to get *you* to join to make them richer ...

Cheers M

On 29/01/2013, at 3:20 PM, Guy Cox <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> And what - so Google Scholar is not out to make a profit?  I've by and large agreed with your previous posts on this topic but this is turning it topsy-turvy.
>
>                                                  Guy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mark Cannell
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013 12:15 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: ORCID Researcher ID ... found in Nature January 3, 2013 Editorial (2 parts, both useful)
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> As a simple existing alternative why not just use the URL to your research gate profile (or google scholar profile etc.).
>
> Cheers
>
> On 29/01/2013, at 1:07 PM, Mark Cannell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> *****
>>
>> Hi George
>>
>> I appreciate it was not your intent to promote a for profit company. But most people don't understand that a not for profit (NOP) is not a charity. NOPs can make a lot of money for their creators, they just don't have share holders (yet -and that is a common exit strategy). In a company such as this it is the exit strategy that drives their creation and in this case they will use millions of hours of scientists time to generate their value and in exchange give what, a number? This is simply not acceptable IMHO. If disambiguation of researcher identity has suddenly become such an issue I would expect the major funders to address this... Frankly I think this need for disambiguation is rubbish (do you think that grants will suddenly not require you to identify your outputs etc) but is is certainly a company that looks to make someone rich in a few years... when they've embedded their id's everywhere.
>>
>> Cheers Mark
>>
>>
>> On 29/01/2013, at 11:51 AM, George McNamara <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>> *****
>>>
>>> Hi Mark,
>>>
>>> I disagree with your assessment that my message was "really spamming". For one thing, most of the jobs I've had have been thanks to networking. Linkedin helps with that. I came across ORCID because of the editorial in Nature - a journal that most of the microscopists here would give their 20x/0.8 NA lens to publish in.
>>>
>>> As for profit vs "non-profit" - a couple of comments:
>>>
>>> 1. I believe addgene.org and ATCC were set up to be non-profits. Depositing plasmids and cells, respectively, at central distribution sites (companies) seems much more efficient than every lab sending requests and/or stuff all over (for space reasons, I won't comment about MTAs).
>>>
>>> 2. I worked at Applied Spectral Imaging Inc for ~2.5 years. The CEO was Robert Buckwald - a serial entrepreneur. He had a great line: "A company's moral obligation is to make a profit". I believe from his perspective that a "non-profit company" is an oxymoron.
>>>
>>> As for Facebook - I don't use it. However, I do use Microsoft Windows and IE (and wish it was better) and Google (search, maps, Chrome) every day, and Microsoft Word and Excel, Adobe Photoshop, and Molecular Devices MetaMorph often. Also Microsoft ICE (image composite editor - a no charge image stitcher) occasionally. I am generally impressed by Google search, even though I am not paying for its access directly,
>>>
>>>
>>> George
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/29/2013 4:06 AM, Mark Cannell wrote:
>>>> *****
>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>> *****
>>>>
>>>> It's business model is stated to be NPO -but it is incorporated. The profit can be paid to the originators in the form of executive remuneration to zero the accounts. Until it gets sold... There is no difference between this and (say) Facebook that I can see.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> On 29/01/2013, at 8:52 AM, Peng Xi<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> *****
>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>>> *****
>>>>>
>>>>> Change will take place -- whether you deny or embrace it. This time, in
>>>>> research ID and the way we publish.
>>>>> Like many people don't like the idea of cell phone -- they regard this more
>>>>> like a leash to kill your freedom, the beauty of connecting people (with a
>>>>> phone number) is there. Of course, you don't have to remeber a series of
>>>>> numbers; you still call people John Smith.
>>>>> If we have accepted Linkedin and ResearchGate, both run by for profit
>>>>> companies (well I am not so sure about ResearchGate), then why do we deny a
>>>>> NPO? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Peng Xi
>>>>> Ph. D.    Associate Professor
>>>>> Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering
>>>>> Peking University, Beijing, China
>>>>> Tel: [phone]
>>>>> Email: [hidden email]
>>>>> http://bme.pku.edu.cn/~xipeng
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Mark Cannell<[hidden email]>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Group
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This message is really spamming. Let us be quite clear ORCID Inc. has
>>>>>> cleverly hoodwinked you and others to providing it information of
>>>>>> commercial value as well as placing cookies on your computer. The benefits
>>>>>> or needs of a unique researcher ID are unclear and frankly I don't like the
>>>>>> idea of reducing human identities to a number. I will boycott this service
>>>>>> and advise everyone else to do the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is already research gate and linked in and this is just another
>>>>>> company exploiting our good will for dubious benefit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My 2c.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29/01/2013, at 2:25 AM, George McNamara<[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Confocal Listserv,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The January 3, 2013 Nature has two editorials of interest. the first is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> on ORCID:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.orcid.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "And here is where last year's launch of the Open Researcher and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Contributor ID (ORCID) facility is to be welcomed. The core function of
>>>>>> ORCID --- a community collaboration (see go.nature.com/sy3qnp) --- is to
>>>>>> assign every researcher a number and a web page, thereby providing a unique
>>>>>> identifier and so disambiguation. The web page enables the researcher to
>>>>>> record their contributions: papers they have published and --- a facility
>>>>>> to come --- their research grants and patents. Nature journals authors can
>>>>>> link their ORCID to their account in our manuscript submission and tracking
>>>>>> system, and we will soon be publishing authors' ORCIDs in papers. (Readers
>>>>>> can register for ORCID here: https://orcid.org/register; see also Nature
>>>>>> 485, 564; 2012.) ... That is why Nature and the Nature journals have
>>>>>> introduced two ways in which referees can be given credit. Any referee who,
>>>>>> in a given year, has refereed three or more papers for any of the journals
>>>>>> will receive a letter acknowledging their contribution and a free
>>>>>> subscription to their choice of one of the journals."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My ORCID is 0000-0003-4155-0976
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will add my ORCID to my NIH Biosketch. I already crosslinked my ORCID
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> page with my linkedin profile   www.linkedin.com/in/georgemcnamara
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The second - likely more important! - is on lab safety:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "one-third of scientists say that safety is more important to them than
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is to their colleagues, with only  2% voting the other way. Although
>>>>>> most respondents say that their labs are safe places to work, they
>>>>>> simultaneously report behaviour, such as frequent lone working, that seems
>>>>>> to belie that confidence ...  almost half the respondents reported being
>>>>>> injured in the lab"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which reminds me: "Do not look at laser with remaining eye!".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Happy 2013,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> George
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> p.s. I don't know if this web links to the Nature Editorial will work
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> for everyone (good luck)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.nature.com/news/in-search-of-credit-1.12117
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.12117!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/493005a.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>>>>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>>>>> School of Physiology&   Pharmacology
>>>>>> Medical Sciences Building
>>>>>> University of Bristol
>>>>>> Bristol
>>>>>> BS8 1TD UK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>>> School of Physiology&   Pharmacology
>>>> Medical Sciences Building
>>>> University of Bristol
>>>> Bristol
>>>> BS8 1TD UK
>>>>
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>> School of Physiology&  Pharmacology
>> Medical Sciences Building
>> University of Bristol
>> Bristol
>> BS8 1TD UK
>>
>> [hidden email]
>
> Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
> School of Physiology&  Pharmacology
> Medical Sciences Building
> University of Bristol
> Bristol
> BS8 1TD UK
>
> [hidden email]

Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
School of Physiology&  Pharmacology
Medical Sciences Building
University of Bristol
Bristol
BS8 1TD UK

[hidden email]

[Shalin Mehta]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi everyone,
Personally, I think google (though not facebook) does a good job at
creating value for its users, creating wealth for the company and providing
transparent interface to see what private data is being used (
https://www.google.com/settings/activity). They also try to communicate
their policies through blogs. They also allow you to take your data back
should you decide (http://www.dataliberation.org/). Overall, Google is seen
as a good champion of user data by many - BECAUSE they communicate and
follow their policies.

ORCiD may be an honest attempt at connecting researchers. If they truly
want to be useful to community (apart from making some mullah -
http://about.orcid.org/about/membership), they should make it easy to
import and export the bibliographic data that people have on other
services, and be transparent about their function (
http://about.orcid.org/about/what-is-orcid/governance).


Best
Shalin

website: http://mshalin.com
(office) Lillie 110, (ph) 508-289-7374.

HFSP Postdoctoral Fellow,
Marine Biological Laboratory,
7 MBL Street, Woods Hole MA 02543, USA


On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Barbara Foster <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
> *****
>
> Hi,
>
> As you all know, we often do end-user studies to keep a finger on the
> pulse of our industry.  We did a Social Media study about 15 months ago (I
> know... ancient history in the world of social media... another is planned
> for the near future) and found that microscopists really depend on their
> own listservers (like this one) as well as LinkedIn.  Facebook, etc., were
> WAY down the list.
>
> ORCID appears to be a way of gaining recognition and networking with peers
> via an identification code.  It links to LinkedIn and Scopus... So the
> question is: is this helpful in automatically updating and linking or is it
> just another intrusion on our privacy.  That is a truly individual decision.
>
> Finally: Social media can be both a blessing and a bother.  I have friends
> and family who post to FB 10 times a day ... and as much as I love them,
> I've disconnected from all of that.  On the other hand, actively networking
> with fellow scientists has always been a keystone for us.  Just remember:
> each of us has control of the "Off" button here, so we can connect or
> disconnect as we see fit.  Check out ORCID and, if you think that getting
> an ID that will help you link to research and other related activities in
> your area of interest, go for it.  Otherwise, keep things simple.
>
> Hope this was helpful.
> Barbara Foster, President & Chief Consultant
> Microscopy/Microscopy Education*
> www.MicroscopyEducation.com
>
> *A subsidiary of The Microscopy & Imaging Place, Inc.
> 7101 Royal Glen Trail, Suite A
> McKinney, TX 75070
> P: 972-924-5310
> F: 214-592-0277
>
> MME is currently scheduling courses for the Fall 2013. Call us today for a
> free training evaluation.
>
>
>
>
> At 09:28 AM 1/29/2013, Philip Oshel wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>> *****
>>
>> You mention the business model in your question: advertising. Selling the
>> ads on the site (the "extraneous gibble") and "click-throughs". Click on an
>> ad, and get sent to the advertiser's site. They then pay
>> ORCID/Linked-In/Facebook/**Google/etc so many cents for every
>> click-through. Enough so that sites like Google and Facebook make a few
>> billion dollars a year.
>> Plus, they track users and sell that information to vendors and
>> advertisers. Best way to deal with this is to use private browsing and
>> clear all data (cookies, flash cookies, caches, etc. - if you have Safari,
>> look at list that comes up when you click on "Reset Safari") when leaving a
>> site.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> On 01/29/2013 09:18 , Rob Palmer wrote:
>>
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>> *****
>>>
>>> Hello all -
>>> I find this an interesting discussion from two standpoints.
>>> 1) do we need yet another Facebook specific to scientists? That is what
>>> ORCID seems like to me. Isn't LinkedIn sufficient? As Peng noted, If we
>>> all have embraced LinkedIn (embraced does not describe my feelings, but
>>> I am listed), doesn't that mean anyone who would be interested in being
>>> on ORCID isn't already on LinkedIn? How many of these things are needed?
>>> It would seem the answer is "the number that can be supported by
>>> profitable business models". Science as business - certainly true for
>>> many (and for good reason) but not for me or for most of my colleagues.
>>> 2) What is the business model here? I am truly clueless about this - I
>>> can't understand how Facebook or LinkedIn make money. I don't even use
>>> Facebook (have yet to suffer other than not being able to enter a couple
>>> of contests), and I simply tune out all the extraneous gibble
>>> (adverts/sidebars/etc) on sites just like I get up from the coach during
>>> television commercials. I even have a program that removes a lot of that
>>> junk automatically, akin to TIVOing through the commercials. I guess
>>> somebody reads that stuff and even follows up to the point that it is
>>> beneficial for the advertiser. Also, sites seems now to be making some
>>> money directly by offering some sort of paid "premium access", which
>>> generally cuts down on the nonsense you have to put up with to get to
>>> the information you really want (as opposed to providing services
>>> unavailable to the great unwashed). Does any of that money go to the
>>> advertisers?
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:51 AM, George McNamara wrote:
>>>
>>>  *****
>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>> *****
>>>>
>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>>
>>>> I disagree with your assessment that my message was "really spamming".
>>>> For one thing, most of the jobs I've had have been thanks to
>>>> networking. Linkedin helps with that. I came across ORCID because of
>>>> the editorial in Nature - a journal that most of the microscopists
>>>> here would give their 20x/0.8 NA lens to publish in.
>>>>
>>>> As for profit vs "non-profit" - a couple of comments:
>>>>
>>>> 1. I believe addgene.org and ATCC were set up to be non-profits.
>>>> Depositing plasmids and cells, respectively, at central distribution
>>>> sites (companies) seems much more efficient than every lab sending
>>>> requests and/or stuff all over (for space reasons, I won't comment
>>>> about MTAs).
>>>>
>>>> 2. I worked at Applied Spectral Imaging Inc for ~2.5 years. The CEO
>>>> was Robert Buckwald - a serial entrepreneur. He had a great line: "A
>>>> company's moral obligation is to make a profit". I believe from his
>>>> perspective that a "non-profit company" is an oxymoron.
>>>>
>>>> As for Facebook - I don't use it. However, I do use Microsoft Windows
>>>> and IE (and wish it was better) and Google (search, maps, Chrome)
>>>> every day, and Microsoft Word and Excel, Adobe Photoshop, and
>>>> Molecular Devices MetaMorph often. Also Microsoft ICE (image composite
>>>> editor - a no charge image stitcher) occasionally. I am generally
>>>> impressed by Google search, even though I am not paying for its access
>>>> directly,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> George
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/29/2013 4:06 AM, Mark Cannell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> *****
>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>>> *****
>>>>>
>>>>> It's business model is stated to be NPO -but it is incorporated. The
>>>>> profit can be paid to the originators in the form of executive
>>>>> remuneration to zero the accounts. Until it gets sold… There is no
>>>>> difference between this and (say) Facebook that I can see.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> On 29/01/2013, at 8:52 AM, Peng Xi<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  *****
>>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Change will take place -- whether you deny or embrace it. This time,
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> research ID and the way we publish.
>>>>>> Like many people don't like the idea of cell phone -- they regard
>>>>>> this more
>>>>>> like a leash to kill your freedom, the beauty of connecting people
>>>>>> (with a
>>>>>> phone number) is there. Of course, you don't have to remeber a
>>>>>> series of
>>>>>> numbers; you still call people John Smith.
>>>>>> If we have accepted Linkedin and ResearchGate, both run by for profit
>>>>>> companies (well I am not so sure about ResearchGate), then why do we
>>>>>> deny a
>>>>>> NPO? :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Peng Xi
>>>>>> Ph. D. Associate Professor
>>>>>> Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering
>>>>>> Peking University, Beijing, China
>>>>>> Tel: [phone]
>>>>>> Email: [hidden email]
>>>>>> http://bme.pku.edu.cn/~xipeng
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Mark
>>>>>> Cannell<mark.cannell@bristol.**ac.uk <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  *****
>>>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Group
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This message is really spamming. Let us be quite clear ORCID Inc. has
>>>>>>> cleverly hoodwinked you and others to providing it information of
>>>>>>> commercial value as well as placing cookies on your computer. The
>>>>>>> benefits
>>>>>>> or needs of a unique researcher ID are unclear and frankly I don't
>>>>>>> like the
>>>>>>> idea of reducing human identities to a number. I will boycott this
>>>>>>> service
>>>>>>> and advise everyone else to do the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is already research gate and linked in and this is just another
>>>>>>> company exploiting our good will for dubious benefit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My 2c.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 29/01/2013, at 2:25 AM, George McNamara<geomcnamara@**
>>>>>>> EARTHLINK.NET <[hidden email]>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  *****
>>>>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Confocal Listserv,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The January 3, 2013 Nature has two editorials of interest. the
>>>>>>>> first is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on ORCID:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  http://www.orcid.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "And here is where last year's launch of the Open Researcher and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Contributor ID (ORCID) facility is to be welcomed. The core
>>>>>>> function of
>>>>>>> ORCID --- a community collaboration (see go.nature.com/sy3qnp) ---
>>>>>>> is to
>>>>>>> assign every researcher a number and a web page, thereby providing
>>>>>>> a unique
>>>>>>> identifier and so disambiguation. The web page enables the
>>>>>>> researcher to
>>>>>>> record their contributions: papers they have published and --- a
>>>>>>> facility
>>>>>>> to come --- their research grants and patents. Nature journals
>>>>>>> authors can
>>>>>>> link their ORCID to their account in our manuscript submission and
>>>>>>> tracking
>>>>>>> system, and we will soon be publishing authors' ORCIDs in papers.
>>>>>>> (Readers
>>>>>>> can register for ORCID here: https://orcid.org/register; see also
>>>>>>> Nature
>>>>>>> 485, 564; 2012.) ... That is why Nature and the Nature journals have
>>>>>>> introduced two ways in which referees can be given credit. Any
>>>>>>> referee who,
>>>>>>> in a given year, has refereed three or more papers for any of the
>>>>>>> journals
>>>>>>> will receive a letter acknowledging their contribution and a free
>>>>>>> subscription to their choice of one of the journals."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  My ORCID is 0000-0003-4155-0976
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will add my ORCID to my NIH Biosketch. I already crosslinked my
>>>>>>>> ORCID
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> page with my linkedin profile www.linkedin.com/in/**georgemcnamara<http://www.linkedin.com/in/georgemcnamara>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The second - likely more important! - is on lab safety:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "one-third of scientists say that safety is more important to them
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it is to their colleagues, with only 2% voting the other way.
>>>>>>> Although
>>>>>>> most respondents say that their labs are safe places to work, they
>>>>>>> simultaneously report behaviour, such as frequent lone working,
>>>>>>> that seems
>>>>>>> to belie that confidence ... almost half the respondents reported
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>> injured in the lab"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Which reminds me: "Do not look at laser with remaining eye!".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Happy 2013,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> George
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> p.s. I don't know if this web links to the Nature Editorial will
>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for everyone (good luck)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  http://www.nature.com/news/in-**search-of-credit-1.12117<http://www.nature.com/news/in-search-of-credit-1.12117>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  http://www.nature.com/**polopoly_fs/1.12117!/menu/**
>>>>>>> main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/**pdf/493005a.pdf<http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.12117!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/493005a.pdf>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>>>>>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>>>>>> School of Physiology& Pharmacology
>>>>>>> Medical Sciences Building
>>>>>>> University of Bristol
>>>>>>> Bristol
>>>>>>> BS8 1TD UK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Mark B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>>>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>>>> School of Physiology& Pharmacology
>>>>> Medical Sciences Building
>>>>> University of Bristol
>>>>> Bristol
>>>>> BS8 1TD UK
>>>>>
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
>>> Microbial Receptors Section
>>> Laboratory of Cell and Developmental Biology
>>> Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
>>> Bldg 30, Room 207
>>> 30 Convent Drive
>>> Bethesda MD 20892
>>> ph 301-594-0025
>>> fax [phone]
>>> .
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Philip Oshel
>> Microscopy Facility Supervisor
>> Biology Department
>> 024C Brooks Hall
>> Central Michigan University
>> Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859
>> [phone]
>>
>

[Rosemary.White]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

So, there's ResearcherID, which our organisation is insisting we have, and
ResearchGate, as well as the rest. Why do we need yet another one of
these, and this is one we have to pay for? I thought we were all about
open access these days...


Dr Rosemary White
CSIRO Plant Industry
GPO Box 1600
Canberra, ACT 2601
Australia

T 61 2 6246 5475
F 61 2 6246 5334
E [hidden email]



On 6/02/13 8:20 AM, "Shalin Mehta" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>*****
>To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>*****
>
>Hi everyone,
>Personally, I think google (though not facebook) does a good job at
>creating value for its users, creating wealth for the company and
>providing
>transparent interface to see what private data is being used (
>https://www.google.com/settings/activity). They also try to communicate
>their policies through blogs. They also allow you to take your data back
>should you decide (http://www.dataliberation.org/). Overall, Google is
>seen
>as a good champion of user data by many - BECAUSE they communicate and
>follow their policies.
>
>ORCiD may be an honest attempt at connecting researchers. If they truly
>want to be useful to community (apart from making some mullah -
>http://about.orcid.org/about/membership), they should make it easy to
>import and export the bibliographic data that people have on other
>services, and be transparent about their function (
>http://about.orcid.org/about/what-is-orcid/governance).
>
>
>Best
>Shalin
>
>website: http://mshalin.com
>(office) Lillie 110, (ph) 508-289-7374.
>
>HFSP Postdoctoral Fellow,
>Marine Biological Laboratory,
>7 MBL Street, Woods Hole MA 02543, USA
>
>
>On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Barbara Foster <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>
>>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.
>>edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>> *****
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As you all know, we often do end-user studies to keep a finger on the
>> pulse of our industry.  We did a Social Media study about 15 months ago
>>(I
>> know... ancient history in the world of social media... another is
>>planned
>> for the near future) and found that microscopists really depend on their
>> own listservers (like this one) as well as LinkedIn.  Facebook, etc.,
>>were
>> WAY down the list.
>>
>> ORCID appears to be a way of gaining recognition and networking with
>>peers
>> via an identification code.  It links to LinkedIn and Scopus... So the
>> question is: is this helpful in automatically updating and linking or
>>is it
>> just another intrusion on our privacy.  That is a truly individual
>>decision.
>>
>> Finally: Social media can be both a blessing and a bother.  I have
>>friends
>> and family who post to FB 10 times a day ... and as much as I love them,
>> I've disconnected from all of that.  On the other hand, actively
>>networking
>> with fellow scientists has always been a keystone for us.  Just
>>remember:
>> each of us has control of the "Off" button here, so we can connect or
>> disconnect as we see fit.  Check out ORCID and, if you think that
>>getting
>> an ID that will help you link to research and other related activities
>>in
>> your area of interest, go for it.  Otherwise, keep things simple.
>>
>> Hope this was helpful.
>> Barbara Foster, President & Chief Consultant
>> Microscopy/Microscopy Education*
>> www.MicroscopyEducation.com
>>
>> *A subsidiary of The Microscopy & Imaging Place, Inc.
>> 7101 Royal Glen Trail, Suite A
>> McKinney, TX 75070
>> P: 972-924-5310
>> F: 214-592-0277
>>
>> MME is currently scheduling courses for the Fall 2013. Call us today
>>for a
>> free training evaluation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 09:28 AM 1/29/2013, Philip Oshel wrote:
>>
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>
>>>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn
>>>.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>> *****
>>>
>>> You mention the business model in your question: advertising. Selling
>>>the
>>> ads on the site (the "extraneous gibble") and "click-throughs". Click
>>>on an
>>> ad, and get sent to the advertiser's site. They then pay
>>> ORCID/Linked-In/Facebook/**Google/etc so many cents for every
>>> click-through. Enough so that sites like Google and Facebook make a few
>>> billion dollars a year.
>>> Plus, they track users and sell that information to vendors and
>>> advertisers. Best way to deal with this is to use private browsing and
>>> clear all data (cookies, flash cookies, caches, etc. - if you have
>>>Safari,
>>> look at list that comes up when you click on "Reset Safari") when
>>>leaving a
>>> site.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> On 01/29/2013 09:18 , Rob Palmer wrote:
>>>
>>>> *****
>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>
>>>>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.um
>>>>n.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>> *****
>>>>
>>>> Hello all -
>>>> I find this an interesting discussion from two standpoints.
>>>> 1) do we need yet another Facebook specific to scientists? That is
>>>>what
>>>> ORCID seems like to me. Isn't LinkedIn sufficient? As Peng noted, If
>>>>we
>>>> all have embraced LinkedIn (embraced does not describe my feelings,
>>>>but
>>>> I am listed), doesn't that mean anyone who would be interested in
>>>>being
>>>> on ORCID isn't already on LinkedIn? How many of these things are
>>>>needed?
>>>> It would seem the answer is "the number that can be supported by
>>>> profitable business models". Science as business - certainly true for
>>>> many (and for good reason) but not for me or for most of my
>>>>colleagues.
>>>> 2) What is the business model here? I am truly clueless about this - I
>>>> can't understand how Facebook or LinkedIn make money. I don't even use
>>>> Facebook (have yet to suffer other than not being able to enter a
>>>>couple
>>>> of contests), and I simply tune out all the extraneous gibble
>>>> (adverts/sidebars/etc) on sites just like I get up from the coach
>>>>during
>>>> television commercials. I even have a program that removes a lot of
>>>>that
>>>> junk automatically, akin to TIVOing through the commercials. I guess
>>>> somebody reads that stuff and even follows up to the point that it is
>>>> beneficial for the advertiser. Also, sites seems now to be making some
>>>> money directly by offering some sort of paid "premium access", which
>>>> generally cuts down on the nonsense you have to put up with to get to
>>>> the information you really want (as opposed to providing services
>>>> unavailable to the great unwashed). Does any of that money go to the
>>>> advertisers?
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:51 AM, George McNamara wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  *****
>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.u
>>>>>mn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>>> *****
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree with your assessment that my message was "really
>>>>>spamming".
>>>>> For one thing, most of the jobs I've had have been thanks to
>>>>> networking. Linkedin helps with that. I came across ORCID because of
>>>>> the editorial in Nature - a journal that most of the microscopists
>>>>> here would give their 20x/0.8 NA lens to publish in.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for profit vs "non-profit" - a couple of comments:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I believe addgene.org and ATCC were set up to be non-profits.
>>>>> Depositing plasmids and cells, respectively, at central distribution
>>>>> sites (companies) seems much more efficient than every lab sending
>>>>> requests and/or stuff all over (for space reasons, I won't comment
>>>>> about MTAs).
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. I worked at Applied Spectral Imaging Inc for ~2.5 years. The CEO
>>>>> was Robert Buckwald - a serial entrepreneur. He had a great line: "A
>>>>> company's moral obligation is to make a profit". I believe from his
>>>>> perspective that a "non-profit company" is an oxymoron.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for Facebook - I don't use it. However, I do use Microsoft Windows
>>>>> and IE (and wish it was better) and Google (search, maps, Chrome)
>>>>> every day, and Microsoft Word and Excel, Adobe Photoshop, and
>>>>> Molecular Devices MetaMorph often. Also Microsoft ICE (image
>>>>>composite
>>>>> editor - a no charge image stitcher) occasionally. I am generally
>>>>> impressed by Google search, even though I am not paying for its
>>>>>access
>>>>> directly,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> George
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/29/2013 4:06 AM, Mark Cannell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.
>>>>>>umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's business model is stated to be NPO -but it is incorporated. The
>>>>>> profit can be paid to the originators in the form of executive
>>>>>> remuneration to zero the accounts. Until it gets soldŠ There is no
>>>>>> difference between this and (say) Facebook that I can see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29/01/2013, at 8:52 AM, Peng Xi<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  *****
>>>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists
>>>>>>>.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Change will take place -- whether you deny or embrace it. This
>>>>>>>time,
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> research ID and the way we publish.
>>>>>>> Like many people don't like the idea of cell phone -- they regard
>>>>>>> this more
>>>>>>> like a leash to kill your freedom, the beauty of connecting people
>>>>>>> (with a
>>>>>>> phone number) is there. Of course, you don't have to remeber a
>>>>>>> series of
>>>>>>> numbers; you still call people John Smith.
>>>>>>> If we have accepted Linkedin and ResearchGate, both run by for
>>>>>>>profit
>>>>>>> companies (well I am not so sure about ResearchGate), then why do
>>>>>>>we
>>>>>>> deny a
>>>>>>> NPO? :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Peng Xi
>>>>>>> Ph. D. Associate Professor
>>>>>>> Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering
>>>>>>> Peking University, Beijing, China
>>>>>>> Tel: [phone]
>>>>>>> Email: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> http://bme.pku.edu.cn/~xipeng
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Mark
>>>>>>> Cannell<mark.cannell@bristol.**ac.uk <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  *****
>>>>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://list
>>>>>>>>s.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Group
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This message is really spamming. Let us be quite clear ORCID Inc.
>>>>>>>>has
>>>>>>>> cleverly hoodwinked you and others to providing it information of
>>>>>>>> commercial value as well as placing cookies on your computer. The
>>>>>>>> benefits
>>>>>>>> or needs of a unique researcher ID are unclear and frankly I don't
>>>>>>>> like the
>>>>>>>> idea of reducing human identities to a number. I will boycott this
>>>>>>>> service
>>>>>>>> and advise everyone else to do the same.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is already research gate and linked in and this is just
>>>>>>>>another
>>>>>>>> company exploiting our good will for dubious benefit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My 2c.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2013, at 2:25 AM, George McNamara<geomcnamara@**
>>>>>>>> EARTHLINK.NET <[hidden email]>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  *****
>>>>>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lis
>>>>>>>>>ts.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Confocal Listserv,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The January 3, 2013 Nature has two editorials of interest. the
>>>>>>>>> first is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on ORCID:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  http://www.orcid.org/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "And here is where last year's launch of the Open Researcher and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Contributor ID (ORCID) facility is to be welcomed. The core
>>>>>>>> function of
>>>>>>>> ORCID --- a community collaboration (see go.nature.com/sy3qnp) ---
>>>>>>>> is to
>>>>>>>> assign every researcher a number and a web page, thereby providing
>>>>>>>> a unique
>>>>>>>> identifier and so disambiguation. The web page enables the
>>>>>>>> researcher to
>>>>>>>> record their contributions: papers they have published and --- a
>>>>>>>> facility
>>>>>>>> to come --- their research grants and patents. Nature journals
>>>>>>>> authors can
>>>>>>>> link their ORCID to their account in our manuscript submission and
>>>>>>>> tracking
>>>>>>>> system, and we will soon be publishing authors' ORCIDs in papers.
>>>>>>>> (Readers
>>>>>>>> can register for ORCID here: https://orcid.org/register; see also
>>>>>>>> Nature
>>>>>>>> 485, 564; 2012.) ... That is why Nature and the Nature journals
>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>> introduced two ways in which referees can be given credit. Any
>>>>>>>> referee who,
>>>>>>>> in a given year, has refereed three or more papers for any of the
>>>>>>>> journals
>>>>>>>> will receive a letter acknowledging their contribution and a free
>>>>>>>> subscription to their choice of one of the journals."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  My ORCID is 0000-0003-4155-0976
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I will add my ORCID to my NIH Biosketch. I already crosslinked my
>>>>>>>>> ORCID
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> page with my linkedin profile
>>>>>>>>www.linkedin.com/in/**georgemcnamara<http://www.linkedin.com/in/geo
>>>>>>>>rgemcnamara>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The second - likely more important! - is on lab safety:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "one-third of scientists say that safety is more important to
>>>>>>>>>them
>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it is to their colleagues, with only 2% voting the other way.
>>>>>>>> Although
>>>>>>>> most respondents say that their labs are safe places to work, they
>>>>>>>> simultaneously report behaviour, such as frequent lone working,
>>>>>>>> that seems
>>>>>>>> to belie that confidence ... almost half the respondents reported
>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>> injured in the lab"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Which reminds me: "Do not look at laser with remaining eye!".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Happy 2013,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> George
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> p.s. I don't know if this web links to the Nature Editorial will
>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for everyone (good luck)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.nature.com/news/in-**search-of-credit-1.12117<http://www
>>>>>>>>.nature.com/news/in-search-of-credit-1.12117>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  http://www.nature.com/**polopoly_fs/1.12117!/menu/**
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/**pdf/493005a.pdf<http://www.nature.c
>>>>>>>>om/polopoly_fs/1.12117!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/4930
>>>>>>>>05a.pdf>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mark B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>>>>>>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>>>>>>> School of Physiology& Pharmacology
>>>>>>>> Medical Sciences Building
>>>>>>>> University of Bristol
>>>>>>>> Bristol
>>>>>>>> BS8 1TD UK
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Mark B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>>>>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>>>>> School of Physiology& Pharmacology
>>>>>> Medical Sciences Building
>>>>>> University of Bristol
>>>>>> Bristol
>>>>>> BS8 1TD UK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
>>>> Microbial Receptors Section
>>>> Laboratory of Cell and Developmental Biology
>>>> Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
>>>> Bldg 30, Room 207
>>>> 30 Convent Drive
>>>> Bethesda MD 20892
>>>> ph 301-594-0025
>>>> fax [phone]
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Philip Oshel
>>> Microscopy Facility Supervisor
>>> Biology Department
>>> 024C Brooks Hall
>>> Central Michigan University
>>> Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859
>>> [phone]
>>>
>>

[Dmitry Sokolov]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Dear All,

I've tried to summarise your contribution to the topic in the knowledge
network format:
http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/63117847/ORCID

The comparative analysis shows no niche for the business. I may miss
something. Your comments would be highly appreciated.

Many thanks,
Dmitry

*Advanced Knowledge Management*
for *MICROSCOPY *and *Image Analysis *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Dmitry Sokolov*, Ph.D.
Mob: *[phone]***
[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>



06.02.2013 10:20, Shalin Mehta ?????:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hi everyone,
> Personally, I think google (though not facebook) does a good job at
> creating value for its users, creating wealth for the company and providing
> transparent interface to see what private data is being used (
> https://www.google.com/settings/activity). They also try to communicate
> their policies through blogs. They also allow you to take your data back
> should you decide (http://www.dataliberation.org/). Overall, Google is seen
> as a good champion of user data by many - BECAUSE they communicate and
> follow their policies.
>
> ORCiD may be an honest attempt at connecting researchers. If they truly
> want to be useful to community (apart from making some mullah -
> http://about.orcid.org/about/membership), they should make it easy to
> import and export the bibliographic data that people have on other
> services, and be transparent about their function (
> http://about.orcid.org/about/what-is-orcid/governance).
>
>
> Best
> Shalin
>
> website: http://mshalin.com
> (office) Lillie 110, (ph) 508-289-7374.
>
> HFSP Postdoctoral Fellow,
> Marine Biological Laboratory,
> 7 MBL Street, Woods Hole MA 02543, USA
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Barbara Foster <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>> *****
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As you all know, we often do end-user studies to keep a finger on the
>> pulse of our industry.  We did a Social Media study about 15 months ago (I
>> know... ancient history in the world of social media... another is planned
>> for the near future) and found that microscopists really depend on their
>> own listservers (like this one) as well as LinkedIn.  Facebook, etc., were
>> WAY down the list.
>>
>> ORCID appears to be a way of gaining recognition and networking with peers
>> via an identification code.  It links to LinkedIn and Scopus... So the
>> question is: is this helpful in automatically updating and linking or is it
>> just another intrusion on our privacy.  That is a truly individual decision.
>>
>> Finally: Social media can be both a blessing and a bother.  I have friends
>> and family who post to FB 10 times a day ... and as much as I love them,
>> I've disconnected from all of that.  On the other hand, actively networking
>> with fellow scientists has always been a keystone for us.  Just remember:
>> each of us has control of the "Off" button here, so we can connect or
>> disconnect as we see fit.  Check out ORCID and, if you think that getting
>> an ID that will help you link to research and other related activities in
>> your area of interest, go for it.  Otherwise, keep things simple.
>>
>> Hope this was helpful.
>> Barbara Foster, President & Chief Consultant
>> Microscopy/Microscopy Education*
>> www.MicroscopyEducation.com
>>
>> *A subsidiary of The Microscopy & Imaging Place, Inc.
>> 7101 Royal Glen Trail, Suite A
>> McKinney, TX 75070
>> P: 972-924-5310
>> F: 214-592-0277
>>
>> MME is currently scheduling courses for the Fall 2013. Call us today for a
>> free training evaluation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 09:28 AM 1/29/2013, Philip Oshel wrote:
>>
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>> *****
>>>
>>> You mention the business model in your question: advertising. Selling the
>>> ads on the site (the "extraneous gibble") and "click-throughs". Click on an
>>> ad, and get sent to the advertiser's site. They then pay
>>> ORCID/Linked-In/Facebook/**Google/etc so many cents for every
>>> click-through. Enough so that sites like Google and Facebook make a few
>>> billion dollars a year.
>>> Plus, they track users and sell that information to vendors and
>>> advertisers. Best way to deal with this is to use private browsing and
>>> clear all data (cookies, flash cookies, caches, etc. - if you have Safari,
>>> look at list that comes up when you click on "Reset Safari") when leaving a
>>> site.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> On 01/29/2013 09:18 , Rob Palmer wrote:
>>>
>>>> *****
>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>> *****
>>>>
>>>> Hello all -
>>>> I find this an interesting discussion from two standpoints.
>>>> 1) do we need yet another Facebook specific to scientists? That is what
>>>> ORCID seems like to me. Isn't LinkedIn sufficient? As Peng noted, If we
>>>> all have embraced LinkedIn (embraced does not describe my feelings, but
>>>> I am listed), doesn't that mean anyone who would be interested in being
>>>> on ORCID isn't already on LinkedIn? How many of these things are needed?
>>>> It would seem the answer is "the number that can be supported by
>>>> profitable business models". Science as business - certainly true for
>>>> many (and for good reason) but not for me or for most of my colleagues.
>>>> 2) What is the business model here? I am truly clueless about this - I
>>>> can't understand how Facebook or LinkedIn make money. I don't even use
>>>> Facebook (have yet to suffer other than not being able to enter a couple
>>>> of contests), and I simply tune out all the extraneous gibble
>>>> (adverts/sidebars/etc) on sites just like I get up from the coach during
>>>> television commercials. I even have a program that removes a lot of that
>>>> junk automatically, akin to TIVOing through the commercials. I guess
>>>> somebody reads that stuff and even follows up to the point that it is
>>>> beneficial for the advertiser. Also, sites seems now to be making some
>>>> money directly by offering some sort of paid "premium access", which
>>>> generally cuts down on the nonsense you have to put up with to get to
>>>> the information you really want (as opposed to providing services
>>>> unavailable to the great unwashed). Does any of that money go to the
>>>> advertisers?
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:51 AM, George McNamara wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   *****
>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>>> *****
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree with your assessment that my message was "really spamming".
>>>>> For one thing, most of the jobs I've had have been thanks to
>>>>> networking. Linkedin helps with that. I came across ORCID because of
>>>>> the editorial in Nature - a journal that most of the microscopists
>>>>> here would give their 20x/0.8 NA lens to publish in.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for profit vs "non-profit" - a couple of comments:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I believe addgene.org and ATCC were set up to be non-profits.
>>>>> Depositing plasmids and cells, respectively, at central distribution
>>>>> sites (companies) seems much more efficient than every lab sending
>>>>> requests and/or stuff all over (for space reasons, I won't comment
>>>>> about MTAs).
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. I worked at Applied Spectral Imaging Inc for ~2.5 years. The CEO
>>>>> was Robert Buckwald - a serial entrepreneur. He had a great line: "A
>>>>> company's moral obligation is to make a profit". I believe from his
>>>>> perspective that a "non-profit company" is an oxymoron.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for Facebook - I don't use it. However, I do use Microsoft Windows
>>>>> and IE (and wish it was better) and Google (search, maps, Chrome)
>>>>> every day, and Microsoft Word and Excel, Adobe Photoshop, and
>>>>> Molecular Devices MetaMorph often. Also Microsoft ICE (image composite
>>>>> editor - a no charge image stitcher) occasionally. I am generally
>>>>> impressed by Google search, even though I am not paying for its access
>>>>> directly,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> George
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/29/2013 4:06 AM, Mark Cannell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's business model is stated to be NPO -but it is incorporated. The
>>>>>> profit can be paid to the originators in the form of executive
>>>>>> remuneration to zero the accounts. Until it gets sold… There is no
>>>>>> difference between this and (say) Facebook that I can see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29/01/2013, at 8:52 AM, Peng Xi<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   *****
>>>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Change will take place -- whether you deny or embrace it. This time,
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> research ID and the way we publish.
>>>>>>> Like many people don't like the idea of cell phone -- they regard
>>>>>>> this more
>>>>>>> like a leash to kill your freedom, the beauty of connecting people
>>>>>>> (with a
>>>>>>> phone number) is there. Of course, you don't have to remeber a
>>>>>>> series of
>>>>>>> numbers; you still call people John Smith.
>>>>>>> If we have accepted Linkedin and ResearchGate, both run by for profit
>>>>>>> companies (well I am not so sure about ResearchGate), then why do we
>>>>>>> deny a
>>>>>>> NPO? :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Peng Xi
>>>>>>> Ph. D. Associate Professor
>>>>>>> Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering
>>>>>>> Peking University, Beijing, China
>>>>>>> Tel: [phone]
>>>>>>> Email: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> http://bme.pku.edu.cn/~xipeng
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Mark
>>>>>>> Cannell<mark.cannell@bristol.**ac.uk <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   *****
>>>>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Group
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This message is really spamming. Let us be quite clear ORCID Inc. has
>>>>>>>> cleverly hoodwinked you and others to providing it information of
>>>>>>>> commercial value as well as placing cookies on your computer. The
>>>>>>>> benefits
>>>>>>>> or needs of a unique researcher ID are unclear and frankly I don't
>>>>>>>> like the
>>>>>>>> idea of reducing human identities to a number. I will boycott this
>>>>>>>> service
>>>>>>>> and advise everyone else to do the same.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is already research gate and linked in and this is just another
>>>>>>>> company exploiting our good will for dubious benefit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My 2c.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 29/01/2013, at 2:25 AM, George McNamara<geomcnamara@**
>>>>>>>> EARTHLINK.NET <[hidden email]>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   *****
>>>>>>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
>>>>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Confocal Listserv,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The January 3, 2013 Nature has two editorials of interest. the
>>>>>>>>> first is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on ORCID:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   http://www.orcid.org/
>>>>>>>>> "And here is where last year's launch of the Open Researcher and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Contributor ID (ORCID) facility is to be welcomed. The core
>>>>>>>> function of
>>>>>>>> ORCID --- a community collaboration (see go.nature.com/sy3qnp) ---
>>>>>>>> is to
>>>>>>>> assign every researcher a number and a web page, thereby providing
>>>>>>>> a unique
>>>>>>>> identifier and so disambiguation. The web page enables the
>>>>>>>> researcher to
>>>>>>>> record their contributions: papers they have published and --- a
>>>>>>>> facility
>>>>>>>> to come --- their research grants and patents. Nature journals
>>>>>>>> authors can
>>>>>>>> link their ORCID to their account in our manuscript submission and
>>>>>>>> tracking
>>>>>>>> system, and we will soon be publishing authors' ORCIDs in papers.
>>>>>>>> (Readers
>>>>>>>> can register for ORCID here: https://orcid.org/register; see also
>>>>>>>> Nature
>>>>>>>> 485, 564; 2012.) ... That is why Nature and the Nature journals have
>>>>>>>> introduced two ways in which referees can be given credit. Any
>>>>>>>> referee who,
>>>>>>>> in a given year, has refereed three or more papers for any of the
>>>>>>>> journals
>>>>>>>> will receive a letter acknowledging their contribution and a free
>>>>>>>> subscription to their choice of one of the journals."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   My ORCID is 0000-0003-4155-0976
>>>>>>>>> I will add my ORCID to my NIH Biosketch. I already crosslinked my
>>>>>>>>> ORCID
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> page with my linkedin profile www.linkedin.com/in/**georgemcnamara<http://www.linkedin.com/in/georgemcnamara>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The second - likely more important! - is on lab safety:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "one-third of scientists say that safety is more important to them
>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it is to their colleagues, with only 2% voting the other way.
>>>>>>>> Although
>>>>>>>> most respondents say that their labs are safe places to work, they
>>>>>>>> simultaneously report behaviour, such as frequent lone working,
>>>>>>>> that seems
>>>>>>>> to belie that confidence ... almost half the respondents reported
>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>> injured in the lab"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   Which reminds me: "Do not look at laser with remaining eye!".
>>>>>>>>> Happy 2013,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> George
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> p.s. I don't know if this web links to the Nature Editorial will
>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for everyone (good luck)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   http://www.nature.com/news/in-**search-of-credit-1.12117<http://www.nature.com/news/in-search-of-credit-1.12117>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   http://www.nature.com/**polopoly_fs/1.12117!/menu/**
>>>>>>>> main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/**pdf/493005a.pdf<http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.12117!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/493005a.pdf>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mark B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>>>>>>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>>>>>>> School of Physiology& Pharmacology
>>>>>>>> Medical Sciences Building
>>>>>>>> University of Bristol
>>>>>>>> Bristol
>>>>>>>> BS8 1TD UK
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   Mark B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>>>>>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>>>>>> School of Physiology& Pharmacology
>>>>>> Medical Sciences Building
>>>>>> University of Bristol
>>>>>> Bristol
>>>>>> BS8 1TD UK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
>>>> Microbial Receptors Section
>>>> Laboratory of Cell and Developmental Biology
>>>> Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
>>>> Bldg 30, Room 207
>>>> 30 Convent Drive
>>>> Bethesda MD 20892
>>>> ph 301-594-0025
>>>> fax [phone]
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Philip Oshel
>>> Microscopy Facility Supervisor
>>> Biology Department
>>> 024C Brooks Hall
>>> Central Michigan University
>>> Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859
>>> [phone]
>>>