The COST Action FP0905 Experiences on the Web: Web 2.0 and Scientific Dissemination

Forms of communication have evolved over time with increasing speeds reaching the present form of the dynamic Web 2.0 with the emergence of communities, social networks (i.e., Facebook, Twitter), wikis, etc. The internet is no longer just a means of information and use of content for daily use, but it has become part of everyday life , changing our behavior and consequently the way we think. For spreading information relevant to this COST Action FP0905, the website (http://www.cost-action-fp0905.eu/) was set up to provide communication between participants of the Action, and to disseminate the activities, knowledge, and technology produced beyond the COST Action network. The principal aims of the website were to provide a database of the main information on genetically modified trees (GMTs) and to update the website with science based information of public interest on GMTs related to the activities within the Action. Therefore, Web 2.0 technologies were used to support the aims of the COST Action, with specific positive (YouTube and Twitter) but sometimes also negative communication experiences (i.e., hacker’s attacks) of the Action, which are reported.

[1]  Ygal Benhamou,et al.  Facebook activity of residents and fellows and its impact on the doctor–patient relationship , 2010, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[2]  L. Bach.  Blogging during terminal care: communication, color schemes, and creating a community. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  G. Eysenbach.  Medicine 2.0: Social Networking, Collaboration, Participation, Apomediation, and Openness , 2008, Journal of medical Internet research.

[4]  Ryen W. White,et al.  Cyberchondria: Studies of the escalation of medical concerns in Web search , 2009, TOIS.

[5]  J. Frost,et al.  Social Uses of Personal Health Information Within PatientsLikeMe, an Online Patient Community: What Can Happen When Patients Have Access to One Another’s Data , 2008, Journal of medical Internet research.

[6]  Brandon Keim.  News feature: WikiMedia , 2007, Nature Medicine.

[7]  Matthew Hurley,et al.  Patients' blogs—do doctors have anything to fear? , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  K. Nielsen,et al.  European discussion forum on transgenic tree biosafety , 2012, Nature Biotechnology.

[9]  P. Watzlawick,et al.  Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes , 1964 .

[10]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Evan B. Goldstein,et al.  Implementation Brief: The iCritical Care Podcast: A Novel Medium for Critical Care Communication and Education , 2007, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[12]  Bradford W. Hesse,et al.  Realizing the Promise of Web 2.0: Engaging Community Intelligence , 2011, Journal of health communication.

[13]  Don Tapscott,et al.  Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything , 2006 .

[14]  J. Sandars,et al.  Web 2.0 technologies for undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: an online survey , 2007, Postgraduate Medical Journal.