Media chatter in the past few weeks spurred by the “Pepsigate” exodus from scienceblogs.com has focused attention on “science bloggers” – whatever those are.

I guess I’m one of them. The problem is, there’s no such thing – at least not in the singular. Instead, “science blogger” is a conglomerate term used loosely to describe people who fall into one or another of several categories:

1) Scientists who use the internet. Some of these professionals relay and get feedback on research questions; some push an agenda; some vent about their lives and jobs; some act more like science journalists, providing context and commentary for non-scientists.
2) Science journalists who use the internet. This group, some working for media companies, some freelancers, generally relay news of scientific findings, occasionally with discussion.
3) Corporate and nonprofit PR types exploring ways to profit or raise their groups’ profiles on the internet.
4) Activists using science to promote an agenda.
5) Science fans blogging about their favorite disciplines.

There are probably others. Point is, though, that little is gained from lumping together such a disparate group, given the differences in their backgrounds and goals.

Instead, we should throw out the term “science blogger” — too loose, too squishy — and substitute simpler, more descriptive ones, like “scientist,” “science journalist,” “PR writer,” or whatever. Yes, these terms can be a little vague, too (who’s to say who gets to call themselves a “science journalist”?) but it’s a start.

I’ll go first: I am a science writer.