Communication of

Scientific and Technical

Information

Ma. Theresa H. Velasco

Josephine C. Sison
Antonio G. Moran
Alexander G. Flor

University of the Philippines

OPEN UNIVERSITY
Communication of Scientific and Technical Information
By Ma. Theresa H. Velasco, Josephine Caccam-Sison, Antonio G. Moran,
Alexander G. Flor

Copyright © 2005 by Ma. Theresa H. Velasco, Josephine Caccam-Sison,

Antonio G. Moran, Alexander G. Flor
and the University of the Philippines Open University

Apart from any fair use for the purpose of research or private study,
criticism or review, this publication may be reproduced, stored
or transmitted, in any form or by any means
ONLY WITH THE PERMISSION
of the authors and the UP Open University.

Published in the Philippines by the UP Open University

Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
Rm 217, National Computer Center
CP Garcia Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City 1101
Telephone 63-2-426-1515
Email [email protected]

ISBN 971-767-119-2

First printing, 2000

Second printing, 2005

Layout by Dang Cadalo

Cover design by Eleanor P. Manipol

Photos Copyright © 2004-2005 by Photos.com/Jupiter Images;

Copyright © 2004 by the UPOU Multimedia Center.

Printed in the Philippines

 About the Authors

Ma. Theresa H. Velasco was trained academically to be a journalist but

she has found her true calling in the academe as teacher/trainer, re-
searcher, technical editor, and all-around communication person. She
obtained her AB (cum laude) Journalism and MA Journalism degrees, both
from the University of the Philippines Diliman, and her PhD in Develop-
ment Communication from the University of the Philippines Los Baños
(UPLB). Her involvement in various strategic communication projects
spearheaded by international agencies, like Johns Hopkins University’s
Center for Communication Programs, the World Health Organization,
United Nations Population Fund, and the United Nations Food and Agri-
culture Organization, among others, has brought her to various places in
and outside the country. As first chair of the College of Development
Communication’s Department of Science Communication, she has taken
it upon herself to work zealously for the advancement of science commu-
nication within the domain of development communication.

Josephine Caccam-Sison (1943-2003) personified the modern science

communicator who practiced to the fullest the skills of information sci-
ence cum traditional librarianship in the context of development commu-
nication. She obtained her PhD degree from UPLB and the University of
Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania, USA) through a joint doctoral program with
majors in development communication and information science. A pro-
lific writer, she had 43 publications on topics ranging from librarianship
to information sharing to information networking and management. In
her lifetime, she received numerous awards and professional citations for
her contributions to library and information science. She helped set up
the Agricultural Information Bank for Asia (SEAMEO Regional Center
for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture) and served as its project
manager for close to two decades. Dr. Sison was also dean of the Institute
of Library Science, University of the Philippines Diliman from 1997-1999
and affiliate professor of development communication, serving as lecturer
and thesis adviser to students working for their master’s degrees.

Antonio G. Moran graduated with a PhD in Sociology in 1990 from the

University of Queensland, Australia. He obtained his MS in Development
Communication in 1979 from UPLB. From 1990 to 1998, he taught gradu-
ate and undergraduate courses in Science Communication and Advanced
Communication Theory at the UPLB College of Development Communi-
cation. From 1975 to 1985, he handled development communication
courses in the same unit. In 1998, he transferred to UP in Mindanao
where he has been teaching management, communication, and sociol-
ogy. He is now Dean of the UP Mindanao College of Humanities and
Social Sciences. He was chosen Fulbright Senior Scholar for Advanced
Research (1998-1999). He did collaborative work with a professor emeri-
tus and distinguished professor at the University of Albany, State Univer-
sity of New York.

Alexander G. Flor is the first Dean of the Faculty of Information and

Communication Studies, University of the Philippines Open University
(UPOU). He served as Vice Chancellor for Research and Development of
UPOU, Professor of Development Communication of the UPLB College
of Development Communication, Program Manager of the SEAMEO
SEARCA Knowledge Management Program, Head of Consulting Services
of SEAMEO SEARCA, Managing Director of Madecor Career Systems,
and Research Fellow of the East West Center Institute of Communication
and Culture in Honolulu, Hawaii. He has authored/co-authored 15 books,
22 journal articles, and 11 book chapters including The Philippine Commu-
nication Scene, 2003 Asian Communication Handbook and Philippine News
Media and the New Media. He is a member of the New York Academy of
Sciences.
 Preface

The revised edition of the DEVC 263 Manual (Communication of Scien-

tific and Technical Information) had been long in coming. The authors’
classic excuses are pressures from work, work, work. On the other hand,
the four years in-between have given us time to reflect on and make the
best use of the rapid developments in the field of science communication
for the benefit of our students. This revised edition now has three new
chapters focusing on knowledge management, the historical perspective
of science communication in the context of development communication,
and the developments in the science communication curriculum of the
College of Development Communication, University of the Philippines
Los Banos. CDC, UPLB is so far the only academic institution in the coun-
try that is offering the science communication track under the BS Devel-
opment Communication curriculum.

The Preface would not be complete without our sincerest appreciation to

the pillars of science communication, the people who have made it their
lives’ passion to contribute to the development of a Science and Techno-
logy culture in the country through science communication. Foremost
among them are:

Dr. Juan F. Jamias, professor emeritus of development communication,

whose writings and fiery defense of the curriculum in the early ‘80s paved
the way for the institution of the first courses on science communication;

Dr. Josephine C. Sison, former dean of the Institute of Library and Infor-
mation Science who, until her untimely demise in December 2003, was
working dedicatedly to “humanize” the information science aspect of sci-
ence communication;

Dr. Felix Librero, second chancellor of the UP Open University and former
director of the then Institute of Development Communication, who lent
his unstinting support for the completion of this and other manuals in the
Master of Professional Studies in Development Communication program;
Dr. Maria Celeste H. Cadiz, first dean of the College of Development
Communication, who quietly inspired and worked behind the scene for
her colleagues to be able to avail themselves of opportunities that would
contribute to developments in science communication;
Colleagues in the College of Development Communication, especially in
the Department of Science Communication—Dr. Nora C. Quebral, Dr.
Cleofe S. Torres, Dr. Melinda F. Lumanta, Prof. Mia Liza A. Lustria,
Remi E. de Leon, Hermilea Marie P. Cabral, Victor Orlando G. Perez—
who patiently and zealously sat with the authors during the series of
Roundtable Discussions and countless other brainstorming sessions on
science communication; and

Prof. Ila Virginia Ongkiko (1962-2000), development communicator and

science communicator par excellence.
 Table of Contents
Unit I The New Communication Environment

Module 1 Science Communication, 3

Objectives, 3
Norms and Values of the Science Communicator, 3
Domains of Science Communication, 16
Promoting science literacy and technology appreciation, 16
Popularizing research results, 18
Enhancing interaction among scientists, 19
Communicating with the aid of machines or technology, 19
References, 32

Module 2 Information and Communication Revolution, 33

Objectives, 33
The Evolution of Scientific Information, 38
References, 46

Unit II The Construction of Scientific Knowledge and Information

Module 3 The Generation and Organization of Scientific Knowledge, 49

Objectives, 49
Scientific and Technical Literature, 50
Information Channels, 51
Definitions of the Main Types of Documents, 52
Flows in Scientific Information and Knowledge, 56
Types of Information Sources, 64
Guides to sources of information, 68
Structure of Scientific Literature, 72
The Documentary Chain, 73
Summary, 77
References, 78

Module 4 Scientific and Technical Literature Searching, 79

Objectives, 79
The Structure of an Information Storage and Retrieval System, 80
Methods of Information Storage and Retrieval, 83
Information storage, 83
Information retrieval, 85
Summary, 92
References, 92

Module 5 Computer-Based Information Storage and Retrieval, 93

Objectives, 94
The Concept of a Database, 94
 Components of a database, 94
Properties of databases, 95
Kinds of databases, 95
Uses of databases, 97
Steps in Information Retrieval, 97
Offline versus Online Searching, 102
Forms of Dissemination of Information, 105
Information Service Defined, 106
Types of information services, 107
Computerized information services, 108
Library or information center-based information services, 110
Scientific Information Management, 117
Abstracts and the Dissemination of Scientific Information, 121
Abstracts and abstracting, 121
Summary, 131
References, 133

Module 6 Knowledge Management, 135

Objectives, 135
Explicit vs. Tacit Knowledge, 136
Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom, 136
The Goal of Knowledge Management, 138
Digital vs. Analog, 139
Conclusion, 142
Summary, 142
References, 143

Unit III Vehicles of Scientific and Technical Information

Module 7 The Levels of Scientific Literature, 147

Objectives, 147
Types of Scientific Literature, 148
The Journal Article, 152
The nature of the journal article, 152
Style and format of journal articles, 153
Parts of the journal article, 154
Real-world audiences, 158
Kinds of audiences, 159
The Materials for Conveying Semi-Technical and Popular S&T Informa-
tion, 160
The poster paper/presentation, 161
Fact sheet, 162
Manual, 164
Newsletter, 164
Photonovel, 165
Leaflet, 165
Summary, 179
References, 180

Module 8 Writing for Different S&T Materials, 181

Objectives, 181
The Language of Science, 182
Prewriting Exercises, 183
Think before you write, 183
Talk before you write, 184
Brainstorm, freewrite, or make a list on paper, 184
Prepare an outline, 184
Write a rough abstract first, 184
Get rid of your inhibitions, 185
Organization and Development, 185
Paragraphs, 186
Transitions, 187
Headings, 188
Approaches to organization, 190
Principles of Clear and Effective Writing, 195
Principle No. 1: Be careful in your use of words, 197
Principle No. 2: Get straight to the point, 198
Principle No. 3: Be careful in your use of adjectives, 200
Principle No. 4: Do away with euphemisms and genteelisms, 201
Principle No. 5: Do not make nouns out of good strong verbs, 202
Principle No. 6: Always take note of the nuances of the use of
voice in the sentence, 203
Principle No. 7: Keep your sentences short, 204
Principle No. 8: Observe the rules of grammar, 206
Principle No. 9: Control the use of loose and periodic sentences, 209
Principle No. 10: Revise and sharpen, 210
Summary, 210
References, 212

Module 9 Editing S&T Materials, 213

Objectives, 213
What is Editing?, 215
What Does Being an Editor Mean?, 219
Attributes of a good editor, 219
Tasks of an editor, 220
Tools of an editor, 221
Mechanics and Style Towards Clear and Effective Writing, 224
The stylebook or style manual, 227
Editing symbols, 231
Electronic Editing, 238
Summary, 241
References, 242
Module 10 Alternatives to Scientific Journals, 243
Objectives, 243
ICT in Scientific Publishing, 243
Use of CD-ROMs, 244
Access to electronic journals through the use of online
search services, 247
Use of the Internet, 251
Advantages and disadvantages of CD-ROMs and online
search services, 252
Advantages and disadvantages of scientific journals accessed
via online search or the Internet, 255
Access to scientific journals through co-publication programs, 262
Summary, 265
References, 265

Unit IV Towards the Development of Science Communication as a

Field of Study and Practice

Module 11 Science Communication in the Context of Development

Communication: A Historical Perspective, 269
Objectives, 269
Science Communication and National Development, 270
Problems in Promoting S&T, 270
Lack of public appreciation of science and technology, 271
Lack of support for S&T activities, 272
Inadequate training among those engaged in S&T work, 273
Scarcity of materials on science and technology, 274
Inadequacy of S&T promotion/science communication in the
communication curricula of tertiary institutions, 274
The Beginnings of Science Communication in the Academe, 275
Science Communication: the Content and the Process, 277
The Path Ahead, 283
An Attempt at Definition, 285
References, 286

Module 12 Towards a Revitalized Science Communication

Curriculum, 289
Objectives, 289
Major Courses, 290
The Technical and Social Science Electives, 293
Students’ Main Concerns, 295
Opportunities in Science Communication, 296
Towards a Revitalized Science Communication Curriculum, 297
References, 300
 Unit I

The New Communication

Environment
 Module 1
Science Communication
Antonio G. Moran

Norms and Values of the

Science Communicator Objectives

M any authors of books on science often in

troduce this topic by defining what sci-
ence is. Scientists themselves often prefer to
After studying this module, you
should be able to:

start with definitions before proceeding with 1. Identify the norms and
anything. But for now, we will suspend our values of scientific work and
preferred ideas on what science is and talk their implications to commu-
about what observers of science say about what nication of science; and
scientists do and what norms and values guide 2. List the domains of science
what they choose to do. communication and the
skills needed in each.
By understanding the reasons behind scientific
activities and the norms and values that govern them, we may be better
able to relate our work as communication practitioners with the seem-
ingly distant and exclusive world of science.
4 Communication of Scientific and Technical Information

You may have come across the

name of the sociologist Robert
Merton in your undergraduate
courses. He studied the ways of sci-
ence and observed four basic norms
that seem to hold true for science
wherever it is practiced:

1. Universalism, which requires

that scientific contributions will
be evaluated by the logic and
evidence that support them, not
the particular characteristics of
the scientist who proposes
them;
2. Communalism, which requires
that scientists treat all contribu-

MULTIMEDIA CENTER
tions to knowledge as public
property and share their find-
ings freely with colleagues;
3. Disinterestedness, which re-
quires that scientists place the A scientist in her laboratory seems to
search for truth ahead of per- live in a distant and exclusive world.
sonal gain (fame, power, or eco-
nomic rewards) as they explore the universe objectively; and
4. Organized skepticism, which requires scientists to evaluate critically
all contributions to knowledge and treat all expected knowledge as
tentatively true.

By saying that science is universal, we are saying that it should yield the
same explanations and facts whoever investigates its theories and uses its
methods. Scientists may differ in their beliefs and attitudes. A historian of
science, Thomas Kuhn, argued that these factors do influence the trends
and results of science. Thus, what we behold as science, some people as-
sert, is as much a product of scientists’ constructions of things as it is a
precise representation of the principles they discover in natural and social
phenomena.

Another way of viewing the issue is to question just how objective science
can be. It is said that nothing can be objective, but science progresses just
the same and rises above other ways of arriving at answers because of its
efforts to be as objective as possible.

UP Open University
 Unit I Module 1 5

Perhaps nothing should be referred to as American science, Chinese

science, or Filipino science. There is just good science and there is bad
science (which is not science at all). Arthur Koestler’s ordering of the dis-
ciplines as to objectivity is instructive and may give some clues as to why
the sciences differ in the way they communicate their methods and re-
sults. Mathematics is on top of his list, biology midway and the social
sciences such as sociology and anthropology near the bottom (Figure 1-1).

Nowadays, thinkers would say that this way of looking at how the disci-
plines form is a matter of who is able to dominate the discourse.

Lyric

Epic

Novel

Biography

History

Anthropology

Pscyhology

Medicine

Biology
Subjectively verifiable

Biochemistry

Chemistry
Physics
Mathematics

Objectively verifiable

Figure 1-1. An ordering of the disciplines as to objectivity.

(Source: Koestler, A. 1964. The Act of Creation.New York: McMillan.)

UP Open University
6 Communication of Scientific and Technical Information

Communalism or the “publicness” of science may have more direct im-

plications for commutative practice than the other norms described above.
It may even be said that science, and for that matter, scientific know-
ledge, is itself gene-
rated through the
process of commu-
nication. Not too
long ago, in the ‘70s,
a scientist who took
part in a conference
of what were con-
sidered to be the

MULTIMEDIA CENTER
world’s top 50 sci-
entists said that
“solitude is still the
school of the ge-
nius.” In such a
Advanced communication technology has facilitated the
short span of time,
sharing of information and knowledge.
however, things
may have changed considerably. The so-called communication and infor-
mation revolution, which has enabled many people, not just scientists, to
communicate freely and speedily, has enhanced the communal character
of science. Some high-tech, highly competitive fields may have become
less public because of the increasing role of corporate research, but, as a
general rule, science continues to thrive because of sharing of information
and know-ledge. That is why scientists often attend and present their re-
search findings in conferences, symposia, and the like. They do not go there
for idle talk.

Disinterestedness means, again, objectivity, not lack of concern or lack

of interest. Observing this norm would prevent communication of science
for ulterior ends which diminishes the noble goal of science to seek the
most plausible explanation for how order or disorder in the world come
to be so.

Was disinterestedness, more than any other norm, demonstrated in this

exerpt from a news account of the outbreak of the Ebola virus in Africa?
(The disease caused by the Ebola Virus starts with fever and progresses
until the victim becomes very ill with respiratory problems, severe bleed-
ing, kidney problems, and shock.)

UP Open University
 Unit I Module 1 7

“If you asked scientists, ‘what gives us kicks?’ It’s where does this all come
from? That’s our holy grail,” Swanepoel said.

“On the surface, the scientists work well together. They stay in touch by
electronic mail and fax, and fly to outbreaks of unusual deadly diseases like
bees to honey. But there is a real rivalry behind this,” he said. “The guys even
take bets on who’s going to find it first.”

“It” is the source of the Ebola virus.

If you thought that disinterestedness in this example sounded like uncon-

cern, you may have a good reason to think so. Scientists may be moti-
vated too by the promise of profitable results, but always there is the thrill
of finding the correct explanation such as the cause of the mysterious
disease.

Consider the statement “They…fly to outbreaks of unusual, deadly dis-

eases like bees to honey.” Does not that sentence imply interestedness?
Well, yes, it does—but it is interest in the explanation, not necessarily the
promised economic returns to scientific curiosity.

Was there another norm practiced by the scientists in the above example?
When scientists work well together, and, of course, when they stay in
touch by computer and fax there is a great deal of communalism going
on. Yet the statement was cautious: “On the surface, scientists work well
together.” Rivalry does exist and often this factor can make scientists hold
back on what they tell others.

Doubt, suspicion, and a questioning attitude—held in an organized way—

rid science of unfounded claims to knowledge. Perhaps for lack of orga-
nized skepticism, scientists and news reporters do a disservice to
science. One embarrassing case even saw print in the front page of a news-
paper.

UP Open University
 8 Communication of Scientific and Technical Information

PAG-ASA (weather
bureau) scientists were
described by reporters
to have been puzzled
by the effect of a
presumably powerful
magnetic force on a hill
on Los Baños, pulling
cars uphill toward
MULTIMEDIA CENTER

the direction of a near-

by lake. This was the
last straw for agro-
metereologist Maximo
At the “Magnetic Hill” in Los Baños, Laguna, a vehicle Baradas who could no
appears to be moving uphill by itself, presumably pulled longer stand this kind
by a powerful magnetic force. of conjecture in a place
where science was sup-
posed to thrive. He was so annoyed by the newspaper account that he
took another reporter (me!), and through a simple demonstration proved
that there was an elementary explanation. With the use of a surveyor’s
transit, he proved that the road was in fact going downhill. The rise on
the road was merely an optical illusion created by the opposing perspec-
tive of the embankment and the array of coconut trees on both sides of the
road.

If organized skepticism were taken to heart by our journalists, do you

think they would write stories about a “dancing sun,” manananggal or
aswang, and stuff that smack of pseudo-science? Because of the competi-
tion for audience ratings, the media sometimes couldn’t care less. Thus
the public are treated to a wide array of haphazard observations without
the benefit of the scientific mind.

In addition to the norms of universalim, communalism, disinterestedness,

and organized skepticism, there are values that also determine what
scientists do. The American National Academy of Sciences, in its publica-
tion On Becoming A Scientist, mentioned at least three values that influ-
ence scientific pursuit: good work, honesty, and simplicity (i.e., the
virtue in explaining any phenomena in the simplest and briefest terms
possible).

UP Open University
 Unit I Module 1 9

Mediocrity has no place in science. If scientists were dishonest, we could

not tell fact from falsehood. If scientists give kilometric explanations on
scientific phenomena, many useful ideas would be reduced to naught
because few people could understand them.

Why things are as they are and how they come to be so are two very
important questions that somehow define science. Answering these two
questions imply uncovering the underlying rules or laws that serve to
explain any phenomena.

So far we have put more emphasis on the “science” in Science and Tech-
nology. The application or transformation of knowledge generated by
science into useful applications, such as through engineering, depends
much on communicative activities as well. The cycle of technological
development from invention, development, innovation, technology transfer
and growth and consolidation cannot proceed without communication
and information processing.

The term scientific and technical communication covers the principles,

techniques, and tools needed for both scientific and technological devel-
opment. Some critics say though that this is also a limited view of science.
In the social sciences, for example, there are those who argue that dealing
with human action involves less the uncovering of explanatory principles
than the understanding of the rules that people follow or break in the
course of human conduct. Our preferred term, science communication,
therefore includes scientific and technical communication. Legal and fo-
rensic communication is an example of technical communication which
in all respects may not depend on science alone. Popularization—that is,
communicating science and technology to non-scientists, engineers and
the like— is part of science communication.

UP Open University
10 Communication of Scientific and Technical Information

SAQ 1-1
In the next few pages, I present a number of cases or anecdotes
mostly taken from various media of communications. What are
the norms and values best implied by each? Recall that the four
values are: universalism, communalism, disinterestedness and or-
ganized skepticism. The three values are good work, honesty and
simplicity.

Norms and Values

Case 1
Indiana Jones (portrayed by Harrison Ford) in
the movie “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” with a chalk
in hand, scrawls on the blackboard the under-
lined words below, his cryptic introduction of
his subject to students: “Archeology is con-
cerned with FACTS, NOT TRUTHS.”

Case 2
A whole page of a national daily looked like an
S.O.S to save apitong trees in Metro Manila’s
primary source of water—the Angat dam wa-
tershed. The National Power Corporation, pub-
lishing full-page ads, appealed to the world’s
scientists to help them control the bark beetle
which has been attacking the hardy trees of
Angat. It turned out that the CD-ROMs in the
U.P Los Baños library, a number of U.P. ento-
mologists, and old books all had a solution to
offer. Thus, a simple search for information could
have saved NAPOCOR from embarassment.

Case 3
A scientist was accused of having padded data
on the protein-content of a rice variety he bred.

UP Open University
 Unit I Module 1 11

SAQ 1-1 continued

Norms and Values

Case 4
“Is that what science is all about? Eliminating
possibilities?” Medical researcher Dr. Richard
Campbell (Sean Connery in “The Medicine
Man”) rebuffs a young colleague faced with a
difficult choice: to use the last vial of concoc-
tion to save a boy’s life or to use it for the last
stage of an experiment that promises to reveal
the cure for cancer that can benefit millions of
people. “Eliminating possibilities” is a way of
saying that a scientist should eliminate the vari-
ables that least explain a phenomena. In this
example, this process presents an ethical di-
lemma.

Case 5
As a former minister of science and techno-
logy, Emil Q. Javier, sent a memo to then Presi-
dent Marcos, explaining the objections of the
Samahan ng mga Pisiko ng Pilipinas over the
entry of the Maharishi Institute of Technology
into Philippine education and government.
Maharishi technology was supposed to bring
about enlightment and peace and solve the
problems of poverty and corruption.

UP Open University
12 Communication of Scientific and Technical Information

SAQ 1-2
Below are some of the rules of thumb and practical insights in
technical communication. They are paired with one of the norms
or values of science. State why the pairs are compatible with each
other.

Consider the pair: “Give credit where credit is due—Honesty.” The

rule and the value are compatible with each other because citing
sources in the text of a scientific article or in a bibliography mani-
fest intellectual honesty. The author whose name appears in the
article only claims credit on parts of the article not referenced by
any citation.

Now it’s your turn.

1. Write in a formal style — Disinterestedness

2. Use precise language — Universalism

3. Do not write in an overly descriptive style — Simplicity

4. Write to be understood by a multidisciplinary group. — Com-

munalism

5. Avoid “hedging” or the use of words and phrases that indi-

cate uncertainty such as probably, seem, indicate, supposedly,
etc. — Organized Skepticism

UP Open University
 Unit I Module 1 13

SAQ 1-3
State the norm or value of science implied by the statements be-
low:

Norm or Value

1. Plagiarism is a mortal sin in science.

2. Arguments and presentation of evi-

dence must be sufficiently provided and
logically structured.

3. Keep opinion out of scientific papers

4. Check. Check. Check.

5. Publish or perish.

ASAQ 1-1
Indiana Jones’s accent on facts (Case 1) emphasizes the universal
character of facts, which are the main stuff of science. Universal-
ism is therefore the norm best implied here. However, it may be
argued as well that the cryptic message drives home the norm of
disinterestedness over claims to truth such as from religious and
philosophical beliefs. Organized skepticism can also be cited as a
norm to deal with such argumentative claims.

You must have thought about these norms. That’s good for starters.

UP Open University
14 Communication of Scientific and Technical Information

ASAQ 1-1 continued

Case 2 about the bark beetle is more specific. It shows that com-
munalism enables scientists to come to the rescue whenever there
are serious problems that confront us. But this case also shows
that some scientists failed to do good work—an all too important
value. By issuing a panicky appeal without following an organized
search for information, they missed relevant and useful informa-
tion that were readily available locally such as those in CD-ROMs,
old books, and in the collective memory of several Filipino scientist.

Despair not if you didn’t figure this one out. This course will train
you heavily on the use of automated, as well as manual, informa-
tion storage and retrieval techniques. You will learn what good
scientific hunting (for information) means.

Case 3 is a case of dishonesty, by a scientist, no less. For a com-

municator, this disvalue often comes in the form of plagiarism,
failing to give credit where credit is due, or not acknowledging
sources of information and assistance.

Case 4, which is Sean Connery’s jab at elimination of possibilities

or unexplained variables as the be-all of science, also implies dis-
interestedness. He is disinterested in the immediate application,
such as the treatment of a particular boy’s ailment. This case also
raises moral and ethical questions, and it is becoming a widely
held concern that science should not be free of these questions.
Though this be the case, such issues cannot be allowed to creep
into the reporting of scientific results lest they be colored with the
scientists’ biases.

The last case (Case 5) about Maharishi technology also implies

organized skepticism. It is what the Samahan ng mga Pisiko ng
Pilipinas demonstrated when they questioned the scientific basis
of the claims of the Maharishi group.

UP Open University
 Unit I Module 1 15

ASAQ 1-2
1. Writing in a formal style upholds the norm of disinterested-
ness because it keeps out personal preferences easily commu-
nicated through an informal style of communication. Infor-
mality may creep in with the use of elaborate language and
light or serious tones.

2. Using precise language supports universalism because trans-

lations of a scientific statement into other languages can intro-
duce some variations in meanings. Precise statements will likely
correspond to the same reality or facts no matter how they are
transformed in the structures, rules, and vocabulary of other
languages.

3. Avoiding a descriptive style of writing is consistent with the

goal of science to state universal laws in the simplest and most
succinct way. As a value, simplicity ensures that embellish-
ments will not becloud scientific truth.

4. The day of the recluse in science is over. Even a specialist-sci-

entist crosses disciplines to keep up with the highly interre-
lated and complex world of modern-day scientific development.
Aiming to write so that text is understood by people from many
disciplines upholds communalism as a scientific norm. Only
when more scientists understand certain claims to knowledge
can such knowledge be subjected to a crucible test which is a
mark of genuine science.

5. “Hedging” or the use of words that indicate uncertainty such

as the words seem, appear, probably, perhaps may be consistent
with organized skepticism arising from the tentativeness of
scientific knowledge, but it may be said that if one is not sure
of something, then one should not publish it at all.

UP Open University
16 Communication of Scientific and Technical Information

ASAQ 1-3
1. Plagiarism negates intellectual honesty as a norm of science.
2. Systematic and logical presentation of evidence requires hard
work.
3. Keeping opinions out of science is congruent with the norm of
disinterestedness.
4. Accuracy through rigorous checking of facts requires hard
work.
5. Publishing as a practice nurtures communalism, not to men-
tion the brownie points that one can earn to get tenure or pro-
motion.

Domains of Science Communication

Yes, science is the message in need of more receivers, but how do we get
people to pay attention?

Let us count the ways:

1. By promoting science literacy and technology appreciation;

2. By informing people about the results or products of research;
3. By enhancing interaction among scientists; and
4. By using new information and communication technology.

How does a science communication student prepare himself or herself for

these tasks?

Promoting science literacy and

technology appreciation
Can science literacy be gauged by a person’s ability to follow Ernie Baron
(Philippine radio’s walking encyclopedia) or score well in science quiz
shows? Efforts to measure science literacy have been long debated. There
are those who think that science literacy can be measured with the use of
a test. Others believe that at a minimum, one should be familiar with the
first and second laws of thermodynamics to be called science literate. Still,

UP Open University
 Unit I Module 1 17

others assert that it is mastery of the scientific method that is the hallmark
of genuine science. However, we believe that more than these aspects,
what we need to have is a scientific attitude—an open-minded approach
to the study of things, processes, and events.

The type of thinking that accompanies this frame of mind is proposi-

tional. One who thinks propositionally usually approaches a problem by
saying to one’s self, “Let us suppose…” In other words, the propositional
mind avoids prematurely closing inquiry. Take for example the case of a
motorist who gets a flat tire in a place where help is not readily available.
The person looks for a jack in the back compartment of the car. Not find-
ing anything, he or she kicks the tire and simply gives up the search for a
solution. If only the person were looking for a solution propositionally, he
or she might have, say, used a rope dangling on a branch of a tree nearby
to prop up the car.

The scientific attitude teaches us how to think, not what to think. Because
of this attitude, a science literate person is ready to follow the ways of
science and to use its product (i.e., technology), appropriately.

Scholars recognize three types of science literacy—popular, civic, and

cultural science literacy. As individuals, we need both popular science
literacy and civic science literacy.

Popular science literacy allows us to solve everyday problems without

depending too much on others. It is perhaps what our motorist above
needs—to imagine that a rope hanging on a tree can be a substitute for a
jack. Popular science allows a person to apply scientific principles and
techniques to handle ordinary problems like changing a fuse without get-
ting the shock of one’s life.

Civic science literacy permits us to participate intelligently in policy and

decision making on important science-generated issues such as genetic
engineering of food products and the building of nuclear power plants.
We say, “participate intelligently” because being civic science literate pre-
supposes that a person does not support or oppose any controversial sci-
entific issue without good, valid reasons that are grounded on substantial
understanding of the scientific principles and processes involved.

UP Open University
18 Communication of Scientific and Technical Information

A third type of science lit-

eracy—cultural science lit-
eracy—goes beyond the
two previously discussed
types. It comes about when
science, and of course, its
product—technology—be-
comes an important part of

MULTIMEDIA CENTER
a culture. Cultural science
literacy overcomes doctri-
naire and magical forms of
thinking that puts scientific
explanations on the side- Popular publications on scientific issues and ad-
lines. The National Geo- vances help promote cultural science literacy.
graphic Magazine and
cable TV’s Discovery Channel are examples of efforts that promote cul-
tural science literacy. Ironically, it is when science and technology
become fixtures of society that they feed the imaginative and creative mind.
Science fiction creates a following among book and movie enthusiasts.
Some science fiction writers are even credited for having made more ac-
curate predictions in the growth of science than scientists themselves. It
was a science fiction writer who imagined so many years ago that the
Internet, a world wide electronic network, would be possible.

Popularizing research results

A science literate populace has the appropriate readiness to apply the
products of science. Unit III on science popularization, more specifically
on the factsheet and newsletter, will teach you to communicate research
findings to various audiences.

Popularizing means communicating the ways and results of science

using terms and language easily understood by nonspecialists.

Science is the newsbeat of the modern age. Technological advances pro-

duced by scientific work need to be explained in simple terms for lay us-
ers. Otherwise this work goes to waste. The wonders of science can be
translated into user-friendly texts, dramatized in radio serials, or animated
in videography.

The challenge to the science popularizer has been aptly posed by the criti-
cal newspaper columnist Conrado de Quiroz:

Should he [she] fight the fight in the arena of science, matching term for
term, argument for argument, analysis for analysis? Or should he [she]

UP Open University
 Unit I Module 1 19

fight the fight in the arena of popularization, matching jargon with

simplifications for the average reader? In the first he [she] risks losing
the public. In the second, he [she] risks losing science.

Enhancing interaction among scientists

As science communication students, you can learn to be at home in scien-
tific or R&D institutions by paying scientists a visit and getting to know
them. Scientists and their work are the subject matter of your studies.
How do scientists communicate? What sort of information do they ex-
change? With whom? How often? With what result? These are the very
basic questions communication students ask.

Communication is essential to everyone and the scientist is no exception.

We don’t expect the science communication student to dictate to scien-
tists how they should communicate nor do we say that the student take
over that function of scientists. Science communication practitioners can
offer services that help scientists carry out that responsibility and perhaps
even increase the scientists’ productivity.

Integrated with information science and conventional librarianship, sci-

ence communication can offer ways to make information processing more
efficient and data presentation more effective. We will teach you some of
these practices in Units II and III.

Communicating with the aid

of machines or technology
Have you heard of the word
compunications? As you may
have guessed correctly, it is a
combination of the words
“computer” and “communi-
cation.” The coined term re-
fers to the merging functions
of computers and communi-
MULTIMEDIA CENTER

cation technology. Scientists

are among the first to benefit
from this trend in technologi-
cal evolution. A classic result
of this evolution is the
Computers are now an essential tool in com-
Internet (which you spell munication.

UP Open University
20 Communication of Scientific and Technical Information

with a capital I, because it refers to a specific type of network). It started

as an interactive electronic link for a small group of scientists. But more
recently, these technologies have catered more to the needs of a growing
mass market.

Technology developers have to address, too, the needs of scientists and

engineers for better communication and information processing. Science
communicators can help identify these specific needs. They have to un-
derstand as well the social implications of these technologies for develop-
ing societies like ours. This way, science communicators can help inform
the public so that they can make intelligent decisions, support good poli-
cies, or withhold support for bad ones.

The four major tasks of science communicators that we have just dis-
cussed correspond to four domains of science communication that should
now make more sense to you. These are:

• Science journalism;
• Research communication;
• Scientific communication; and
• Information and communication technology.

SAQ 1-4
Can you match the four domains of science communication with
the description below that best suits each of them?

1. Communication of research
results ____________________
2. Scientist-to-scientist
communication ____________________
3. Computer mediated
communication and ____________________
information exchange
4. Communication of science to
the general public ____________________

UP Open University
 Unit I Module 1 21

SAQ 1-5
Group the science communication materials or activities below into
the domains where they most appropriately belong:

1. Articles in the science

section of the Philippine ____________________
Daily Inquirer
2. The annual report of the
International Rice Research ____________________
Institute
3. A database on medicinal
plants ____________________
4. A poster paper for
presentation in a scientific ____________________
conference

ASAQ 1-4
1. Research communication
2. Scientific communication
3. Information and communication technology
4. Science journalism

ASAQ 1-5
1. Science journalism
2. Research communication
3. Information and communication technology
4. Scientific communication

Did you get all the answers right?

Have we set our expectations for a science communicator much too high?
Are the tasks and domains we described quite a handful?

UP Open University
32 Communication of Scientific and Technical Information

Activity 1-1
1. Have you had experiences similar to those narrated by Dr. Juan
Jamias? List them here:

2. Classify your experiences according to the domains of science

communication enumerated in this section: science journalism,
research communication, scientific communication, and infor-
mation and communication technology.

3. Beside each sub-title in Dr. Jamias’ journal, write down the

domain of science communication being described.

4. Can you mention other tasks that the experiences of Dr. Jamias
include but which had not been mentioned in earlier sections?
A new domain, perhaps?

Now that you have oriented yourself to science communication,

College of Development Communication style, you are ready to
learn the nitty-gritty of the profession.

References

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Acade-

my of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medi-
cine. 1995. On being a scientist: Responsible conduct in Research, 2nd Edi-
tion. National Academy Press.
Light, D., Keller, S. and Calhoun, C. 1989. Readings and Review for
Sociology. 5th Edition. McGraw-Hill. p. 441.

UP Open University