How do biomedical scientists currently use email? How does it affect their work? How does their usage compare with that of other scientists? A forthcoming study by John P. Walsh (University of Illinois at Chicago) and colleagues provides some interesting answers [1]. To compare the use of email among different types of scientists, they surveyed experimental biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and sociologists at all levels of professional development. The study showed that email usage was lowest among biologists, who also began using email later than the others.

All four types of scientists used email most heavily to participate in professional committees, discuss manuscripts with journal editors, and submit reviews to journals. They were least likely to use email to submit manuscripts to journals, discuss research with funding agencies, or submit proposals. Only 18 percent of biologists submitted manuscripts to journals electronically, far lower than the figures for mathematicians and physicists. Biologists take note: the study also showed a significant positive relationship among all types of scientists between email usage and the number of papers published in peer-reviewed journals.

In fact, biologists used email less frequently for all professional uses surveyed, except when commenting on government regulations and proposals. For nine research-related tasks, ranging from coordination of activities (such as meetings) to interactive exchanges between researchers, biologists were less likely to use email than all other types of scientists. The only exceptions were when giving technical advice and progress updates.

Surprisingly, among experimental biologists and other scientists, males and females sent and received roughly the same number of messages daily. In addition, both sexes were equally likely to contact colleagues by email. As the authors state from the 1998 survey, gender equality in using email is particularly important if email facilitates collaboration and increases productivity. In fact, subjects in all fields perceived that their email activity improved these dimensions of their work. Overall, 59 percent of biologists reported an increase in research productivity.

Women scientists seem to find email more useful for their careers than men do. Except for graduate-student involvement with research, women reported greater positive effects in all areas, especially when contacting scholars at other institutions. Since previous studies have cited women's lack of integration into scientific communities to explain research showing lower scientific productivity among women, email usage may be helping to redress the imbalance [2].

Max Delbrück, widely considered the father of molecular biology, once stated, "In the cathedral of science, every brick is equally important." However, empirical studies have shown that a small elite group of researchers drives the progress of science [3]. Combining these previous studies with the results of their survey, Walsh and colleagues make a daring suggestion: while email usage helps the productivity of scientists, it may not improve the productivity of science. The use of email might simply increase the number of replications of a finding without shortening the time between major advances. Not good news for science, but good news for scientific careers.

If email usage is associated with greater productivity and enhancement of careers, biologists can profit by using email more frequently and creatively. Take, for example, manuscript preparation. By regularly emailing drafts to colleagues before submission, you can get useful comments while strengthening informal research networks and extending research discussions. Before submitting the paper, always query your editor with an abstract of your article. A quick pre-review could save you months of delays in publishing.

On a broader scale, consider some new strategies for communicating electronically. Richard Holeton, author of Composing Cyberspace: Identity, Community, and Knowledge in the Electronic Age, recently spoke with me about two principles of computer-based communications. First, email and other forms of Internet communication are most effective when used in tandem with some of the many other available media. On its own, email is not simply the fastest and easiest way to communicate; it is also one of the easiest ways to get ignored among the 50 to 100 messages that busy people may get each day. Because email communicates an extremely narrow bandwidth of information (no faces, voices, or body language) and is asynchronous, it is not a great medium for persuading or motivating people. However, email can be a good trigger for a phone conversation or a face-to-face meeting.

Here is a simple strategy for leveraging a phone discussion with email. If the stranger is a very distinguished person, get the addressee's attention by using subject-line networking: place the name of the person who referred you in the subject header. For example: "Need to speak about Chrom. 22 (referred by Dean Hamish)." Then describe why you need to speak with the addressee, letting your message imply why the conversation might be important. End the email by mentioning when you plan to call unless you hear otherwise. After your conversation, you may exchange follow-up emails for information that is too trivial for a phone call.

Holeton mentioned a second basic principle: people will use the communication channels that best help them to be heard. When you work with a new collaborator, you will quickly find out whether she favors email. Some people use email very infrequently and in a limited way because their messages could end up in the hands of computer administrators, lawyers and judges, or competitors. Since they don't favor the medium as way of being heard, they are unlikely to pay great attention to the email they receive.

Some scientific collaborators prefer open group discussions between labs over serial emails. One solution is to hold asynchronous email discussions through members-only, moderated discussion groups. Such groups can now be set up in a couple of minutes by using free Web-based services such as ONElist. Each day's discussions conveniently land in every collaborator's inbox (either as a daily digest or as individual messages), a situation that has both pluses and minuses. The emails are easy to open, but equally easy to ignore.

Generally, it is better to create separate spaces to conduct discussions than to send these messages through regular email. In that case, several laboratories could set up a moderated Usenet newsgroup, where the moderator strictly limits membership to people in those laboratories. The messages can be easily searched, threaded, and archived. However, you might find it more useful to run discussions from your own Web server by taking advantage of newer technologies. For example, Discus offers free and commercial software to let you run moderated or unmoderated discussions through your Web page. Using your Web page offers additional advantages, such as quick access to files containing papers, software, and archives. As long as your Internet connections aren't routed through slow servers, you can also hold live group videoconferences. Commercial organizations are growing to meet such needs for enhanced discussion. Younger biomedical researchers might find these conferencing tools particularly attractive as they set up new collaborations. Active Worlds offers some promising technologies for electronic communication.

However you pick your tools to meet your needs, making a conscious attempt to use email more effectively can only help your research, your collaborations, and your career.