The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US (the CDC) has always been a network. It’s role is important and impressive. But can disease surveillance be accomplished in new ways?

An interesting site is http://www.whoissick.org, where people stricken by illnesses major or minor can register their conditions. Not every individual report is reliable, of course, and a commune of hypochondriacs could really distort the data, but it’s a pretty interesting mash-up.

A more robust map mash-up (HealthMap) from the Children’s Hospital Informatics Program in Boston follows the news, so the reports are more legitimate and well-described.

If widely adopted and used, these types of sites – both automated and social networked – could change how epidemiology occurs, and what we look at before we plan a trip (i.e., nervous about going to Fluville?).

CrossRef recently announced a plugin for WordPress, the popular blogging platform (and the one this blog uses), showing yet again that citations are not vestiges from a bygone print age but are part and parcel of the permanent Web. CrossRef announced this through their own blog, CrossTech.

It’s from August 2007, but a paper in the online peer-reviewed journal First Monday caught my attention just now. It’s about the phenomenon the authors term “Infomania,” but which can also be called Attention Deficit Trait (ADT).

ADT was first hypothesized by Edward Hallowell. He asserts that “the cognitive impact of Infomania causes people to work well below their full potential. They produce less output, think superficially, and generate fewer new ideas – despite working an increasing number of hours.”

There’s a lot of familiar and worrying points made in this article: distractions from email, smartphones, and the Web may be leading to poor management decision-making because meetings, time to think, and interactions with peers and colleagues are compromised. People sneak peeks at their email during meetings. Managers email staff instead of talking with them, and vice-versa. Lack of response to emails creates “online silence,” and erodes trust and saps teams of energy. Information workers are run ragged because they are “always on.” Thinking takes big chunks of time, and Infomania is depriving us of those, leading to tepid or misguided decision-making.

While the overall productivity gains in the economy over the past 10-15 years might be somewhat attributable to the efficiencies of online, that macroeconomic view leaves the issues in this article untouched. Have we sacrificed some essential long-term advantages while making short-term gains?

Noteworthy from the perspective of “the world ain’t as flat as you thought”: The tension between Tibet and China has led to the censorship of YouTube in China.

Scientific presentations have long been semi-private displays of new data and speculative findings. The nondescript conference room, the slide or PowerPoint presentation, and the somnolent audience — all trademarks of the live meeting event, and all part of why these presentations are viewed as comporting with embargo policies, scientific discourse and free exchange of information, and the like. These in-person meetings aren’t widely broadcast or notorious. Now, there is evidence that even these sessions are moving online via Twitter.

The Mark Zuckerberg interview is worth reading about, I think, because I can imagine in a few months or years a similar Twitter line being generated from a particularly hot or controversial scientific presentation.

What might this do to embargoes? Novelty? Reporting of conferences?