Category Archives: Enterprise

Healthcare Risk Management (#ASHRM2014) – Hashtags of the Week (HOTW): (Week of November 10, 2014)

The American Society for Healthcare Risk Management recently had their annual conference using the hashtag #ASHRM2014 to collection conversation and nuggets of useful information. It looks like it was a lovely event.

Topics included Ebola, injections, infographics, informed consent, data security, emerging tech solutions for discharge followup, patient safety toolkits, and more! Here’s a few of the nuggets.

One thing I learned is that Magic Johnson is much taller than I had imagined.

Open Access or Not? Thoughts on Selecting Online Resources for MOOCs

Birthday: Saline Train Depot: Office - Upside Down Open

I had a very interesting pair of questions come up this week. So interesting and such excellent illustrations of issues in selecting open content for MOOCs that I wanted to share it, but will “change the names” for several reasons. That this is Open Access Week just makes this even more timely. Take this as an example, a case study or sorts, nothing more. However, I do hope that those of you with more experience in intellectual property law will please chime in to clarify any thoughts or misunderstandings I might insert inadvertently.

For background, I’ve been taking a variety of MOOCs in recent years, few of which I complete, and most of which I register for with three reasons in mind. Reason One: The content interests me, and I wish I had time to learn more about it. Reason Two: I’m curious what the bibliography and resources will contain, and hope to add those to my collection, even if I don’t have time for the class. Reason Three: I’m interested in different MOOC platforms and methodologies, and learn about these best by actually trying them out hands on. As a librarian, I have a special interest in the bibliographies, the links, the readings, and where those come from. Part of my interest is personal and part of it comes from our own institution being engaged with MOOCs through the Coursera platform, and wanting to see best practices for how to identify and select content for these types of classes.

EXAMPLE ONE: OLDER PUBLICATION, RECENT COLLECTION

One of the MOOCs I took included in the recommended readings a link to classic content from the 1800s, but which is included in several anthologies, both new and old. A particular anthology was recommended, and a link provided. The link was to a PDF of the entire book hosted in a site for a Slovenian high school English teacher. Meanwhile, given the importance of the work, copies are also available in several well known and highly regarded collections of open access content. These included Project Gutenberg, EServer (hosted by Iowa State University), the American Studies Project (hosted by the University of Virginia), the Internet Archive, Electronic Classics Site (hosted by Pennsylvania State University), and others, such as societies honoring the author and other academic organizations or collections.

I was alarmed to see a link to a suspect source (Slovenian high school?) provided in preference to authoritative sources which track provenance and verify rights to content posted. I dug around in the downloaded PDF and the pages linking to it, hunting for any indication that the teacher had received permission to repost the full book for his students. All I could find was a copyright statement in the PDF that the work was under copyright and that electronic conversion was not allowed, with a statement explicitly asking readers to not encourage electronic piracy. I wanted to bring this up, but did not want to cause any problems for the professor in charge of the MOOC nor for the school hosting the content. For this reason, I did not bring it up in the class forums, but instead hunted for the faculty member’s email address to send a message about the concern and alternate locations to access equivalent content, even if it is not the same anthology.

I received a note from the faculty member explaining the selection, with an interesting perspective. Briefly the logic follows this progression.

1. The contents of the anthology are all out of copyright, and in the public domain.
2. The anthology as a whole and the editorial comments would indeed fall under copyright protection, however, these were not included in the required readings for the class.
3. The professor had asked the students to read selected pages in the work, not the complete anthology nor the introductory content by the editor. The content on those specific pages is not copyrighted.
4. The professor did not himself create the PDF, nor reproduce the pages, but merely linked to them.

As the professor put it, “the assertion of copyright is not the same as having copyright.”

I find this a very intriguing justification, but incomplete and perhaps a bit of nitpicking. I suspect that if push came to shove, if the publisher of the book chose to contest the availability of the PDF online, the professor MIGHT find that his logic stands in a court of law. I suspect that the publisher (widely international, but the work scanned was from an American imprint) might find it easier to establish a suit against American use of the work than trying to take the case to Slovenia. Copyright itself is not the only concern. Additional concerns are placing at risk the institution that provides the MOOC online, the school for which the faculty member works, as potential collaborators in linking to the suspect content. If the school and organization were aware of this and chose to support the use of this link, that would be one thing, but I am not sure that they were or are aware.

Lastly, but not least, I am concerned about the example being set for the students. In my eyes, the faculty have a duty to model information use and resources following methods recommended for their students. Here at the University of Michigan there have been times when the University has elected intentionally to push the boundaries of Fair Use in order to prevent the erosion of the rights, and knowing that they might find themselves the subject of a lawsuit. The Google Book Project is a notable example of this. Google Books is a definite example of the concept the professor noted, that “the assertion of copyright is not the same as having copyright.” If the use of this Slovenian full text link was intended to explicitly test that legal provision, that would be lovely, and I would applaud the bravery and purpose of both the professor and the institutions supporting the content. If so, I would have personally appreciated having that made clear to the students. If not made clear there is the more subtle risk that students will interpret the Slovenian link to a possibly pirated work as having the approval of the professor, especially when so many other clearly open access copies of the work are available and the link is provided in preference to those open and legal copies. That is what baffles me most.

EXAMPLE TWO: RECENT PUBLICATION, OPEN COLLECTION

This example is almost the complete opposite of the first one! This is what makes these two such an exciting pair of examples for me to explore. In this MOOC which I took, the professor had as required readings almost entirely works which were free to the students. There were just a couple notable exceptions, for which you either had to find a print copy in a library or buy a copy. I was lucky, in that I already owned a copy, but when I accidentally stumbled on a free electronic copy online, I thought the professor would appreciate knowing about it, and that it would make life even easier for the students of that course. The professor, quite rightly, was reluctant to pursue making that link available because the author is still alive and the book still in print, making it pretty clear that the copyright is still in force. So, the question became, when is it alright to share an online copy of a copyrighted work? Ever?

The first important concept to understand is that an author may retain the right to share their work, and still keep it under copyright. Even a Creative Commons license does NOT mean that the author has given up their intellectual property rights, only that they’ve simplified the process of requesting certain types of rights. Which rights are simplified depends on which CC license was chosen. So, it is possible that an author could make the choice to permit use of their work in a specific circumstance.

The second important idea is the question of whether the author or the publisher actually owned the copyright in the selected work. Just because an author wrote a book does not mean that they have the RIGHT to make the decision about whether or not it is alright to put up a free copy online. Frankly, based on what I’ve observed, authors are more likely to choose to make a work Creative Commons than publishers. There are publishers that have chosen to make ebook versions of their backfile free when the original is out of print, but that is still more the exception than the rule. For this example, the copyright is owned by the author, se we really don’t have a clue (unless we ask them).

In this example, again, there was a complete PDF of the book, but in addition to the PDF there were also multiple file formats for different e-reader devices, including accessible formats for persons with disabilities and raw text (ASCII). The PDF was not in some distant country or on the web site for a particular local school, but was instead part of a major online collection of full text works. My first step was to look at the credibility of the provider, which is pretty similar to what I did with the first example.

While I’m not listing the specific title, I will list the collection in which it appeared: The Basic e-Learning Library (BeLL) of the Open Learning Exchange, but not the version housed at their main site, rather the BeLL collection housed in the Internet Archive. I tried first to look at the actual work as posted to see if there was any statement about the rights. I couldn’t find anything. Next I tried looking for some sort of statement on the OLE site. I couldn’t find one there either. I wanted to find out more about the OLE, what they do, and how reputable they are. Well, WOW! They are an international initiative focused on providing high quality education resources to 3rd world countries. And do they have powerful partners: UN High Council for Refugees; US Agency of International Development; US State Department; Oxfam …. And those are only a few. My gut reaction was, “They are partners with the US State Department? Well, they MUST be legitimate and responsible!”

I came very close to stopping there, placing my trust in the State Department and the United Nations to properly vet their partners. The group is doing such a good thing, and I really WANT deeply to believe in them and support this wonderful thing they are trying to do, helping low income countries. But then I tried to reverse verify this, and again ran into problems. I tried to find anything on the UN or UNHCR sites to show that they have a partnership with OLE. Hunh. I couldn’t find them listed on the UN site, but there were a couple links on the State Department site. Not anything saying they are partners, but at least people connected with the organization are presenting at State Department events. Normally, I would really not be working this hard. Normally, I would have called this credible and dropped it, which is what I had done when I made the recommendation to the faculty member. But it was starting to really bug me that I had spent so much time on their OLE site and could NOT find anything explicitly about their licensing of copyrighted content, efforts to negotiate in good faith with living authors or their representatives, or anything else. Most of the links that turned up in my searches were broken. Here is what I did find.

“Part 2: Quality Open-Source Content”
“Did we mention that all of these resources are freely available to members under the Creative Commons License?”
http://ole.org/open-educational-resources/

Now this just reads wrong. Open source applies to hardware and code, not to, well, books. Open ACCESS is the correct phrase for books, literature, articles, and other written works. And, well, if the works actually are open source, or open access, or creative commons licensed, then they are available to EVERYONE, not just members. It sounds wrong, at least to me, to even imply that the content is limited to members-only.

I kept digging. I found their Learning Toolkit page, which stated:

“The Open BeLL – Coming Soon!
Our virtual interactive library will now be available for public preview”

Preview? That again makes it sound as it, well, the content isn’t actually open. And I thought their “virtual interactive library” was already available through the Internet Archive? By this point I am so baffled, I don’t know what to think. I start asking my colleagues, one of whom actually finds the official OLE Copyright Statement. The reason I couldn’t find it was because I was looking on their web site. Now, why on earth would I expect to find their legal statements on their own web site? [sarcasm] It was instead on the Internet Archive site.

Open Resource Library - Copyright Statement
OLE Copyright Statement: https://archive.org/stream/OLECopyrightStatement/OLE_Copyright%20Statement#page/n0/mode/2up

Briefly, what this says to me is that they are putting up full text of commercially available copyrighted works under a Creative Commons license with the assumption that this falls under Fair Use. Let’s take a second and look at fair use a bit more.

“Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work”
US Copyright Office, Fair Use. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

I’m no expert on Fair Use. You can find more information on this from Stanford, Texas, and our own University of Michigan Copyright Office.

One of my favorite resources from these groups is the UM “Fair Use Myths.

Fair Use Myths: http://guides.lib.umich.edu/content.php?pid=396670&sid=3248179

The first myth states approximately that just because what you are doing is educational is not sufficient in and of itself to make it fair use. OLE says that they are putting up copyrighted content under a Fair Use claim. They don’t anywhere say that they ask permission, but instead assume it will be ok, because they are good folk. (I’m paraphrasing.) The author might have agreed with them, but there is no way for us to know. But the final of the four factors to be considered is the economic impact. If OLE did not have permission, then making a PDF and text of a complete book available for free does seem like something that might possibly have an impact on sales. For me, it seems like this would fail the “four factors” test.

As I said, I’m not a lawyer, and certainly no expert, but I am a librarian, and I tried really really hard to find any evidence to show that OLE did the right work to protect themselves and their partners. I began this post believing in them, and I ended it with an opposite view. During the days I was working on this post, the work in question, the one that sparked this inquiry, has disappeared from the Internet Archive and now gives a statement of not being available due to an enquiry into a metadata error. I am wondering if someone told the author or their publisher.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

Just because you should doesn’t mean you can.

Who says so?

But what will the neighbors (students) think?

Case Study: I F***ing Love Science & Rare Diseases

"Did you know 1 in 10 people have a rare disease?"

“Did you know 1 in 10 people have a rare disease?”
http://globalgenes.org/rare-diseases-facts-statistics/

If IFLScience didn’t know before that 1 in 10 people have a rare disease, they do now! Last Saturday, IFLScience put up a post on rare diseases. In this post, they chose 10 conditions to highlight, evidently because the popular names for the conditions were reminiscent of Halloween and monsters.

10 of the Strangest Known Medical Conditions
Here is the link:
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/10-strangest-known-medical-conditions

I’m no fan of zombies or gore, and had my own issues with the images selected for this post, but am trying to see both sides. For the record, IFLScience has done a lot of good work engaging and educating the public around science, fostering science literacy and awareness. They are very popular, and (overall) popular science education is a good thing for science. Those of us working in science and in STEM/STEAM education and outreach want people to be willing to learn about science.

This particular article, however, was not received well by many in the rare disease community. Because the article was perceived as misrepresenting not only one rare disease, but TEN, many people in the community banded together, even though these were not conditions that they necessarily had themselves. The rare disease community objected to several points, and have been actively using social media to spread the word in attempts to get IFLScience to take down or withdraw the post.

In the meantime, the rare disease community is also finding themselves in the awkward position of attempting to manage the largely offensive comment stream, educate, correct, and respond, but are having to do this as interested outsiders, not partners, and without the support or cooperation of IFLScience.

The primary concerns I’ve heard from the rare disease community are these.

1) The post was written in a way that provoked unkind comments and trolls, setting up persons with rare diseases as an object of ridicule.

2) The unkind comments (on the post, Facebook, and Twitter) have failed to elicit any response, clarification, management, or revision on the part of IFLScience. There is no acknowledgment of any error of content or presentation. Similarly, there is no response to the rare disease community’s concerns.

3) The images were selected as “clickbait.” The images are themselves offensive, or provoke offensive comments. Evidently, IFLScience has a prior history of not providing attribution of images and not getting a license to use images, although those don’t *appear* to be issues in this particular post. I take it back. They did use several images that specified no commercial use; they use Getty Images without a link back to the source; and they used “share alike” images which is even more strict than a non-commercial use requirement.

4) The content provided contains inaccuracies, which were not being corrected. There are no sources given for where they got the content which is being identified as inaccurate by patients with the conditions mentioned.

Evidently, the issues of non-response, questionable images, and questionable content are simply part of the IFLScience ‘charm’, or modus operandi, as these have been reported several times before.

“After finding one of my photographs posted to IFLS yesterday without permission, I surveyed the most recent 100 images in the IFLS stream and tallied the percentage of images that were credited (26%), uncredited but with the linked site giving a credit (15% – hint: still not legal), and not credited at all (59%). Most of the material on I F*cking Love Science is pirated.” Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not f*cking love artists
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/compound-eye/2013/04/23/facebooks-i-fcking-love-science-does-not-fcking-love-artists/

“Uncharacteristically, Andrew was silent on social media. Her lack of response suggested less media savvy than I’d begun to give her credit for; it smacked of a hobbyist, someone who doesn’t hold herself accountable.” Do you know Elise Andrew? http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/elise_andrew.php?page=all

“A string of posts this summer suggested that IFLS endangers facts on a fairly regular basis; these included a photoshopped, uncredited image of a snake (“…this gorgeous creature is found in California” – except it doesn’t look a thing like the over-saturated, edited version the site posted), a re-posted cracked.com photo suggesting spiders had taken over trees in Japan (and showing what was actually a landscape in Iran), an astronomy news story that misstated the entire premise of the discovery in the first sentence and went on to bungle facts throughout.” Guest Post: Elise Andrew, science popularizer with a spotty attribution record, gets a pass from CJR. https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2014/09/elise-andrew-science-popularizer-with-a-spotty-attribution-record-gets-a-pass-from-cjr/

Because I’m such a fan of all-things-science, I really did not want to believe anything bad about IFLScience. From what I’ve been reading it sounds like most people, even those who complain about some of their less desirable qualities, mostly love the idea of what they do and just want IFLS to commit to doing it responsibly and ethically. Most of the posts excerpted above at some point say something along those lines.

In the conversation with rare disease advocates on Twitter, I was trying to defend IFLScience, as a source that successfully promotes science literacy in the public, presumably for the right reasons. I argued that the piece was intended as educational, not to be hurtful. That you can’t always control who posts comments. I argued for the importance of an open dialog rather than censorship and removing content. This became much harder to do when the conversation went on, and on, and IFLScience did not respond to either the concerns, complaints, or kudos. They didn’t respond to comments on the blogpost. They didn’t respond to posts on their Facebook page. They didn’t respond to any of the myriad comments on Twitter.

Here is what I posted on Facebook:

Concerned about the lack of response from “I f***ing love science” to reactions from the ‪#‎raredisease‬ patient communities to their blogpost by Lisa Winter. Extensive commenting on the blogpost and a rich discussion on Twitter. Hard to defend them as good folk with a heart in the right place when they don’t stand up for themselves.

It was about that point in time when I found a way to track down the author of the piece on Twitter, and made contact.

UPDATE September 20, 2014: The author’s comment has been removed from the end of the blogpost and is no longer there.

I don’t know if these will content the persons who were concerned, but I hope it shows a good faith attempt in that direction, and keeps the door open for future dialog.


LESSONS LEARNED?

Those changes and the response from the author are a good start, and certainly better than no response. There are, however, obvious lessons to learn.

1) Contact information easily findable.

By the time I was engaged in the conversation, there were a LOT of comments on the original post, and the comment thread along meant scrolling, and scrolling, and scrolling. There evidently IS a “Contact” link in a small font at the very bottom of the page. Sounds like they are working on fixing this problem.

2) Respond in a timely manner.

This is one of the easiest & most common ways to avoid getting into news media trouble for your social media buzz. I have a Pinterest board where I collect educational stories and best practices for social media troubleshooting, and this shows up a lot there. Consider it fundamental.

3) Social media policy posted where it can be found.

When we found that IFLScience wasn’t responding to our hails, I went hunting for a social media policy on their web site, in case they actually say, “We don’t moderate comments, and don’t reply to comments, and don’t reply on Facebook or Twitter, but here, this is what we do.” Actually, I was hoping that they would have some sort of guidelines for participation in the community, something along the lines of “Yeah, we’re all wild and crazy characters, but let’s play nice anyway, eh, folk?” I couldn’t find one. There may be a social media policy that I couldn’t find, and I hope so, but perhaps make it easier to find? Certainly, for a company that has based their entire operations on social media, they need a proper social media policy up front and center more than most traditional companies.

4) Pictures: Licensed, & Attributed. Information: Researched & Cited.

I know, I know. This has come up a LOT. They are young, they are new, they are learning. Please, IFLScience, go visit your friendly neighborhood university library and talk with one of the librarians who specializes in intellectual property of images. Most universities have someone who knows about this. Aside from the concern of whether or not the images were appropriate or inflammatory, I should not find as many images problems as I did in this post. IFLS is a commercial entity. They sell stuff and make money from their web site. They have advertising / sponsored links. They are not authorized to use images that are licensed non-commercial (as was the case for 4 of the 10 images in this post) without negotiating licensing before using the image. I know you’re trying to fix this ongoing problem, but you either need a lawyer on staff to review every single post before it goes live, or you need to learn your stuff, and make sure all staff who post images also know the rules.

And citations? Many of the complaints about the quality of the content could have been addressed by having credits for your information sources. “Oh, you said this wrong thing because you used this source that is famous but out of date.” People may cut you some slack for those types of errors if they can see how they happened. Also, it provides a service for your readers, if they want to go learn more about what you just said. Win-win! Protects you, and serves the best interests of your audience.

5) Style guide! Or Checklist!

It’s obvious that IFLScience has a publication calendar, and some rudiments of a style guide. I can’t be certain, but would love to see them take a leadership role in transparency about how they create and share science information, setting an example for others. I was hoping to see a checklist at least, if there wasn’t a style guide.

Since I couldn’t find one on the IFLScience site, I started looking for other science blogging guides. I found some excellent ones, but will make that a separate post. For today, and here, suffice it to say that having one is another strategy that might help protect IFLS from complaints as well as helping to ensure quality control for their content.

6) Say Sorry

If you make a mistake, say you’re sorry, and fix it. Science knowns all about retractions and corrections. Don’t be afraid of them in science blogging. It’s cool, and actually makes you look more cool. Not being afraid to say you made a mistake makes you look more competent and confident, and can inspire confidence in you. Another win-win!

FINAL THOUGHTS

There was one checklist I found that I thought rather relevant to this particular situation: The Alternative-Science Respectability Checklist. Why? Because a big part of what caused the problem this past week was a clash of cultures, and that is what this checklist addresses.

Discovery: Cosmic Variance (Sean Carroll, June 19, 2007): The Alternative-Science Respectability Checklist http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/19/the-alternative-science-respectability-checklist/

IFLScience is trying to be edgy and catchy and engaging, fun and funky and funny all at the same time. They are focused on science, but break boundaries all the time there, and have made a name for themselves (literally) based on breaking some of the standard assumptions and rules for science communication.

In this post they crossed the boundary over into healthcare, where the culture is a little different. It might still be fun, funky, catchy, edgy, etc., but within an overarching framework of CARING. Compassion is at the heart of most of healthcare communication, and that is what was missing (albeit inadvertently) from this post.

What the The Alternative-Science Respectability Checklist recommends is taking the time to address issues of different cultures when you try to communicate across these invisible boundaries. Here’s how Sean Carroll said it.

1. Acquire basic competency in whatever field of science your discovery belongs to.
2. Understand, and make a good-faith effort to confront, the fundamental objections to your claims within established science.
3. Present your discovery in a way that is complete, transparent, and unambiguous.

To paraphrase:

1) LISTEN. Get to know something about the audience for the content you are communicating. Get to know their culture, standards, expectations. Expect to make mistakes, and expect to apologize. Be good-humored about it.

2) TRY. Understand, and make a good-faith effort to be authentic and respectful (even if you, like IFLScience, are famed for your snarkiness — you can be snarky without being mean, even accidentally). If you don’t have time to do this well and thoroughly, be up front about that in the piece, and ask for forgiveness in advance. Yes, you can be entertaining about it, if you are creative enough. You’ll figure it out.

3) SHARE. Present your thoughts & information in a way that is complete, transparent, and unambiguous. Be honest. Be inclusive. Be open. Let them know about you, and that you want to know about them.

MedX, and TEDMED, and the Inauguration, Oh, MY!!

MedX, UM Inaugural Symposia, TEDMED

Last week I was privileged to listen in on a press conference for the upcoming TEDMED. Tomorrow is the Symposia for the Inauguration of UM’s new President, Mark S. Schlissel, with Harold Varmus as a guest speaker! Later tomorrow and this weekend, I’ll be watching Stanford’s Medicine X (#MedX) through their Global Access program. Next week the UM Medical School will be hosting a viewing of TEDMED. I feel like I’m swimming in an intellectual biomedical broth!


President Schlissel Inauguration Symposia with Harold Varmus

Inaugural Symposia: Sustaining the Biomedical Research Enterprise and Privacy and Identity in a Hyperconnected Society

HASHTAG: #UMPres14
LIVESTREAM (1): http://umich.edu/watch/
LIVESTREAM (2): http://www.mgoblue.com/collegesportslive/?media=461850

The Inaugural Symposia for President Schissel’s investiture (8:30am ET to 12:00 noon ET) are composed of two very interesting topics and even more interesting collections of speakers. The first part, “Sustaining the Biomedical Research Enterprise,” is the section including the famous Harold Varmus, but also five other notable researchers from on campus, experts in chemistry, genetics/genomics, neuroscience, statistics, and biomedical imaging. (I’m excited that three of the five have expertise related to genomics!)

The focus of the first symposia centers around a recent article from Varmus and colleagues entitled, “Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws.

The provocative abstract states:

“The long-held but erroneous assumption of never-ending rapid growth in biomedical science has created an unsustainable hypercompetitive system that is discouraging even the most outstanding prospective students from entering our profession—and making it difficult for seasoned investigators to produce their best work. This is a recipe for long-term decline, and the problems cannot be solved with simplistic approaches. Instead, it is time to confront the dangers at hand and rethink some fundamental features of the US biomedical research ecosystem.”

Those three ‘simple’ sentences imply an enormity of challenges which impact both locally and globally. I guarantee it will be fascinating to hear this panel discuss these and brainstorm ways in which the University of Michigan might work towards addressing them here.


Stanford Medicine X

Stanford Medicine X 2014

HASHTAG: #MedX
LIVESTREAM: Available with pre-registration through the MedX Global Access program: http://medicinex.stanford.edu/2014-global-access-program/.

Lucky for me, the Stanford Medicine X event is on the other coast, so our local event will be almost completed when they begin livestreaming at 8AM PT (11AM ET). However, Medicine X conference lasts a solid three days, and includes topics from self-tracking to self-awareness, from entrepreneurship to partnership in design, from compassion to PCORI, from pain to clinical trials to games. It’s intense. A lot of my friends will be there, too many to name, but they include doctors, patients, geeks, and more. MedX is a powerful diverse community, and this is an exciting event.

Schedule: http://medicinex.stanford.edu/2014-schedule/


TEDMED 2014

TEDMED 2014

HASHTAGS: #TEDMED; #TEDMEDlive; #TEDMEDhive; #GreatChallenges.
LIVESTREAMING OPTIONS: http://www.tedmed.com/event/tedmedlive

TEDMED is a little different from the other two events in that it isn’t sponsored through higher education and the livestream isn’t usually free. For folk here in Ann Arbor, there is a way to watch it on campus. What you’ll see if you come includes very little that is expected. Even when someone has a job description that might sound like regular healthcare folk, what they are talking about will probably be a surprise. Beyond the idea of doctor, patient, nurse or neuroscientist, you will also hear comedians, musicians, athletes, bioethicists, military, philosophers, inventors, and more. But what else would you expect, when the theme of the event is “Unlocking Imagination”?

The TEDMED event is a little more complicated than in prior years because they are having presenters and events on both coasts — in Washington DC and in San Francisco. Some parts will overlap. Other parts won’t. You can check out the schedules for both coasts here.

Washington DC Stage Schedule (pdf)

San Francisco CA Stage Schedule (pdf)

To watch locally, details are given below.

Watch the Live Stream of TEDMED Conference, September 10-12

The Medical School will host a live stream from the TEDMED conference, which takes place September 10-12 in Washington DC and San Francisco. The focus of this year’s program is “Unlocking Imagination in Service of Health and Medicine.” Presenters include some of the most respected and undiscovered names in science, journalism, education, business, and technology. Click here to see the conference schedule. Viewing times and locations for watching the live streams are:

Wednesday, September 10: 8am-5pm: University Hospital South (Old Mott) 8th floor lounge
Thursday, September 11: 8am-12pm, 1pm-5pm: University Hospital South (Old Mott) 8th floor lounge
Friday, September 12: 8am-11:30am: University Hospital South (Old Mott) 8409 Conference Room
Friday, September 12: 11:30am-5pm: University Hospital South (Old Mott) 8419 IDTT Collaboration Space

What To Do About Bad Guys in Your Twitter Events

How To Block On Twitter

We’re having a big event, as you already know. We’ve used social media a lot in the planning and preparation of the event, and we want social media used during the event. We want to be able to show engagement, a diverse community, a virtual community as well as the face-to-face folk who come in person. We want people to upload pics to Instagram and Flickr, videos to Vine and Youtube; we want people to blog, and to tweet like crazy.

But anyone who has spent much time on Twitter knows what happens when you get a really active hashtag going. Spammers show up. And sometimes trolls. And sometimes people get confused about your hashtag and start sending content they think is relevant (but really they’re confused and it isn’t at ALL appropriate). And some people are just nasty or snarky on purpose. So what do you do?

There was a manager who instructed a social media team exactly what he expected them to do if a hashtag was co-opted like this. His instructions were for EVERYONE TO STOP TALKING. Yeah, really. That was completely the wrong thing to do, but you can’t blame him too much. He wasn’t at all experienced with Twitter, and was trying to work out his own practical interpretation of the popular Internet trope:

DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!!!

Troll

Of course, it’s not that simple.

For starters, just because you don’t like what someone says doesn’t make them a troll. There are many different types of people who can cause trouble in a Twitter stream (and each one requires different handling). Not to mention that telling everyone talking on an active stream to shut up and stop talking is hugely impractical and unworkable. Face it, it’s like a five year old shouting in a large crowd to shut up. No one hears them.

So what CAN you do? Have a plan. Here’s what I’ve seen work.

BEFORE THE EVENT

1) Have a Team
You really need 3-4 people to handle livetweeting an event. You want a team approach so that you are not just one person trying to make yourself heard, but that there are others who have your back in case of trouble, and who will backup what you are saying and retweet it and repeat it and rephrase it to help the important messages get heard. Remember, if you have multiple locations, you want two people in each room, unless the crowd is really small. The bigger the crowd in the room, the more livetweeters you want there from your team. That may mean that you need more than a 4 person team to handle lots of locations

2) Have a Backup Hashtag
When planning your event and choosing a hashtag, have a backup hashtag, just in case things go south. Don’t publicize it in advance, but make sure you have a core team of people tweeting who know what it is. The idea is, “Hey, people, we’re moving the party to a different room.”

3) Strategize
Make sure your team knows how to spot the different types of problems, and what to do in each case. If the point person is in another room, you don’t want the rest of the team waiting for them to come back. So, here is my long time favorite piece on how to identify different types of problems and how to respond. This was written for blogs, but transfers over fairly well to other types of social media.

Air Force Blog Assessment

4) Prepare
Identify the most likely types of problems you expect. Prepare in advance tweets that describe what to do in case of those events. Have a text file with those prepared tweets. Make sure everyone on the team has a copy. Ideally, have a web page prepared with the info. Don’t share the web page until needed, but when it is needed you can share it with everyone on the stream if you want. If not, it is right at the fingertips of everyone on your team, with all the info right in one place, easy to update on the fly.

DURING THE EVENT

1) OPTIONAL: When the event starts, announce general guidelines and assumptions. These might include general behavior guidelines (don’t be preachy); “we assume your tweets are your own and not your company’s”; who is on your team; what the event is about and what the hashtag means; and other things that might matter to your organization.

2) If you aren’t sure if someone is a spammer, and think maybe they are just accidentally being rude, take the conversation out of the hashtag stream. You can use direct messages (DMs) or personal tweets (using the at-sign (@) and their account name). You can nicely ask them to be careful privately without putting them on the defensive. This often works.

3) When it doesn’t work, or when there is nastiness involved (porn, swear words, aggressive marketing), block them, and tell people on the hashtag stream to block spammers. The way Twitter works is that if a hashtag suddenly has a lot of people blocking a lot of other people, things get fixed faster.
– 3a) If a lot of people block the same account, the account tends to be locked down and will disappear.
– 3b) If a lot of blocking activity is happening in a Twitter hashtag stream, the folks at headquarters tend to notice and start monitoring that hashtag for spammers. Suddenly it will all be cleaned up. But it takes a lot of people working together to get this to happen.

4) If none of that seems to be working, break out your backup hashtag and move the party.

HOW TO BLOCK

I was surprised to find out how many people don’t know how to block someone on Twitter. This is really important for shutting down a flood of spammers in a stream. Here’s a little infographic I whipped up to walk people through the process. Feel free to share it.

How To Block On Twitter

OTHER RESOURCES

Social Media Troubleshooting
Pinterest: Rosefirerising: Social Media Troubleshooting: http://www.pinterest.com/rosefirerising/social-media-troubleshooting/

Troubleshooting Portion of: Twitter Hashtags by PF Anderson
Twitter Hashtags (by PF Anderson) http://www.mindmeister.com/270101756/twitter-hashtags-by-pf-anderson

ABOUT #MAKEHEALTH TROLLS

Nature: Don’t Feed the Trolls http://www.nature.com/news/don-t-feed-the-trolls-1.15343

20 Ways to Reuse Repository Content (Infographic of the Week)

20 ways to reuse repository content
Image source: Ayre, Lucy and Madjarevic, Natalia (2014) 20 ways to reuse repository content. In: Open Repositories 2014, 9-13 June 2014, Helsinki, Finland.

Last week, I was pleasantly surprised to find an infographic within a research article. This week is less surprising, but still a very practical application of infographics — a research poster! I can absolutely see using this idea myself, and actually saw a number of infographic/posters at a recent convention. The take home lesson from that is that infographic design and best practices are becoming a core competency for academics of all stripes.

This particular infographic struck my fancy because it provides interesting insights into ideas and strategies for maximising the impact of academic products. Create your research article and deposit a copy with the local institutional repository (which is, here, Deep Blue).

Deep Blue, 2014

Then you are done, and on to the next project. Right? Or not. One thing I’ve learned is that talk to a researcher around campus and most of them have a story about their favorite project that never got the attention they think it warranted. This infographic is chock full of ideas for what to do about that. Placing a copy in the repository is only the beginning.

On My Radar: “Reverse Innovation”

Ethnic Box

“Reverse Innovation” is a concept that came across my horizon a few months ago, and for which I immediately went into high alert. This is important. I want to push today’s Twitter chat on this topic, so I’m going to keep this post very short, and hope to come back to this more soon.

Briefly, then. What first brought this to my attention was a blogpost at Biomed Central which was closely followed by an article in Smart Planet.

Reverse Innovation in Global Health Systems: Building the Global Knowledge Pool http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2013/04/12/reverse-innovation-in-global-health-systems-building-the-global-knowledge-pool/

Dehydration cure from developing countries comes to U.S. hospitals http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/dehydration-cure-from-developing-countries-comes-to-us-hospitals/27991

The basic idea of “reverse innovation” is this, as expressed through my ill-informed novice point of view. The past century or two have largely seen scitech and research and cultural innovation flow from the first world countries to the third world countries. This has resulted in unrealistic expectations and unsustainable processes which are making life harder for all of us, everywhere across the planet. In the interests of increased sustainability and the desire to create innovation that will integrate more efficiently with the broader systems of the planet, the idea is that problem-solving partnerships between first world and third world researchers can result in innovations that are both effective and sustainable, with the innovations flowing from the third world countries to the first world, thus reversing what has been the recent pattern.

You can discover more information about reverse innovation through these resources.

JOURNAL:
Globalization and health: http://www.globalizationandhealth.com/

KEY ARTICLE:
Developed-developing country partnerships: Benefits to developed countries? http://www.globalizationandhealth.com/content/8/1/17

SOUNDBITE:

“Developing countries can generate effective solutions for today’s global health challenges.”

SPECIAL ISSUE / ARTICLE COLLECTION:
Reverse innovation in global health systems: learning from low-income countries http://www.globalizationandhealth.com/series/reverse_innovations

HASHTAGS:
– Primary
#revsinv
#reverseinnovation
– Other
#revinno
#revinnov
#innoverse