7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 1/17

7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 2/17

SUMMARY

Nearly every aspect o our lives today is inused with science and technology — rom health care to nance to entertain-

ment, rom the ood we eat to the books we read, the cars we drive, and the homes that keep us sae and warm. And the

need or more science is obvious. Where are the solutions we demand to illness, pollution, hunger, transportation, and

more? Yet against this backdrop o high achievement and even higher expectations, the American public’s aith in science

has been declining or years. Science itsel is not entirely blameless or this decline. As an institution it hasn’t kept pace

with the needs and expectations o society to do a better job o communicating. Part o the reason or this seeming indi-erence is simply institutional momentum. Part is also due to a lack o leadership on this issue. Many scientists and their

organizations know a communications problem exists but there hasn’t been any organized guidance yet on how to im-

prove the overall communication culture in science, nor is there general acceptance among the oundations and agencies

who und science that better communication is something that needs unding. More investigation o this issue is needed,

as well as evidence o the benets o change.

Te current culture o science communication in America is dened and supported by our major pillars: journal pub-

lishing, institutional capacity, secrecy and recognition. Tis structure isn’t necessarily onerous; rather, understanding it is

critical to understanding what avenues might be open or improving science communication in the uture. What are theimpacts o the current communication decit in science? In general they can be grouped into three categories: restricted

access, lost opportunities, and a lack o civic engagement. Awareness o the communication problem in science is grow-

ing today but only in specic areas and only in ts and starts. Tere isn’t widespread acceptance yet o the right role o 

communication in science, nor is there widespread recognition yet that science communication is a unique discipline as

discussed in the introduction to this paper. nSCI’s role is to help raise awareness o both the science communication eld

and the communications decit in science, dene the challenges ahead, acilitate conversations on solutions, and provide

assistance to test the utility o new approaches. In all, nSCI has identied eight areas o science that rely heavily on eec-

tive communication and that can be targeted with improved communications. Tese areas are divided into two groups—

those that involve science discovery tools and dynamics and those that involve improving science understanding. nSCI’s

“discovery” ocus areas include research collaboration, inormatics, study design, and tech transer; “understanding” areas

include science writing, SEM education, science marketing and public policy. nSCI believes that science needs better

communication tools and practices in these areas to help realize the ull potential o research and also make aster advanc-

es in science education, science policy and other areas where science and society intersect.

All o these better communication tools and practices won’t simply unold overnight, though, nor will their eventual

impacts: scientists and their institutions will rst need to agree on the need or change, and then work together to nd the

best solutions and remain patient and diligent. Te thoughtul work and attention that many individuals and organiza-

tions have contributed to the cause o improving science communication has been helpul, but a concerted and ocused

eort like that being proposed by nSCI is now needed to create organized, timely and sustainable change.

First drat, April 2012

Written by Glenn Hampson. Edited byNissim Ezeiel, Ricardo Gomez, and

Michael Hampson.

Copyright © 2012 National Science

Communication Institute

Cover photo o Vancouver’s Science

World by Bruce Irschic. Some rightsreserved.

7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 3/17

nSCI White Paper: Science Communication Today Page 3

IntRodUctIon

Tis report is the rst dra o a rst attempt to dene

the eld o science communication, the need or

better science communication, and the role that this

paper’s sponsor— the National Science Communica-

tion Institute (nSCI) — hopes to play in improving

science communication. o what end? Assuming the

need exists, what is the goal o improving science

communication? nSCI and others believe that im-

proved communication will lead, perhaps rapidly, to

measurable improvements both in science discovery 

and the public understanding o science.

First, exactly what is science communication? It

doesn’t exist yet, at least not as a unied and com-

prehensive eld. Parts o it do. Science writing iswell-dened, or instance, and some organizations

treat the art o presenting science as science commu-

nication. But nSCI considers science communication

to be the common denominator that unies many o 

the disciplines already supporting science with their

own distinct structures and constituencies. SEM

education is its own eld, or instance, but it requires

the tools and training o eective science commu-

nication to conduct successully. Te same is true o tech transer, inormatics, and study design. Science

marketing isn’t a eld at all but it should be — it’s a

 very practiced specialty that applies the knowledge o 

marketing within the unique culture o science.

In all, nSCI has identied eight areas o science that

rely heavily on eective communication. Broadly 

dened, these areas are divided into two groups —

those that involve science discovery tools and dy-

namics (how science communicates between scien-

tists, or instance), and those that involve improving

science understanding. nSCI’s “discovery” ocus areas

currently include research collaboration, inormatics,

study design and tech transer, and nSCI’s “under-

standing” ocus areas include science writing, SEM

education, science marketing and public policy.

Tere is some crossover, o course. Eective science

writing, inormatics and marketing are all important

to both discovery and understanding, but this is the

general conceptual model.

Te communications expertise needed to succeed in

these eight areas (and perhaps others which will be-

come apparent in the uture) all ow rom a common

base o science communications knowledge, train-

ing and experience. It thereore stands to reason thattreating science communica-

tion as a eld unto itsel is the

best way to ensure communi-

cations consistency, efciency,

eectiveness, and success

across these eight areas o 

science — that it makes more

sense to recognize science

communication as a eld witha wide range o applications

than to treat this wide range o 

applications as completely disparate but with signi-

cant communication components. Consider math

and computer science, or instance. Tese are also

clearly common denominators in science with a very 

wide variety o research applications, but what i they 

weren’t independent disciplines? Could the knowl-

edge, training and experience o math and computer

science possibly be cobbled together by scientists on

as needed on ad hoc basis? Te answer is clearly no.

Math and computer science can’t be aerthoughts,

and neither can communications.

Tis appreciation or the role o communications is

something that every public-acing enterprise has

long understood. In big businesses, or instance, a

communications ofce (or sometimes a marketing

ofce, external relations ofce or something similar)

oversees the public ace o that enterprise — what

the organization says, how they say it and to whom,

what sort o image the organization projects, and so

on. Tis communication ofce oen oversees press

relations, investor relations, marketing, reporting and

more, and can also work closely with or oversee the

inormation technology ofce. Centralized, expert

communications support is an established, essential

resource or ensuring that an organization’s messages

are clear, that it has a unied voice, and that it does

an eective and efcient job o reaching out to both

internal and external audiences in a persuasive way,

whatever the objective o that outreach may be —

education, charity, sales, or, scientic research.

Consider math and computer science….Tese are also clearly commondenominators in science with a very wide

 variety o research applications, but what

i they weren’t independent disciplines?

7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 4/17

nSCI White Paper: Science Communication Today Page 4

Science doesn’t normally utilize this kind o orga-

nizational structure, though. Te communications

ofces o larger research institutions usually don’t

ocus on research-level communications, but on

higher-level organizational communications mat-

ters instead. Also, scientists — who are most oen

limited in what they spend and how they spend it

by the government, sponsor, and oundation grants

they receive — haven’t had the budgets to create the

in-house expertise to ocus on research communica-

tions and marketing. But now that science is increas-

ingly called upon to be a public-acing enterprise

like business — responding to the need or increased

efciencies and more eective messaging — science

should look hard at making an organizational, struc-

tural change. Tere’s a reason Fortune 500 companies

spend billions and billions o dollars every year onservices like marketing, marketing communications,

advertising, public relations, investor relations, and

government relations: because they’re essential.

Te none-too-subtle argument here is that science

should also treat communications as an essential dis-

cipline, integrate science communication more eec-

tively into the culture o science and the ramework 

o research and research institutions, and make better

use o what this new and improved communications

presence can oer. Understanding this argument is

a necessary rst step to understanding the ollowing

descriptions o the problems and possible solutions

in science communication today.

What are the key components o successul science

communication? Eective writing, marketing and

public relations top the list — but with a unique abil-

ity to translate technical materials or lay audiences

in an accurate, understandable, and sometimes a

persuasive way. Tis means that science communi-cation isn’t necessarily the same as technical com-

munication. Te two share many o the same skills,

but their audiences are typically dierent so their

thresholds or acceptable complexity are dierent as

well. echnical writers usually write or industry and

others or whom reading level and subject amiliar-

ity isn’t an issue, while science communicators need

the ability to communicate clearly, persuasively, and

accurately about technical matters or a variety o 

audiences — not just other scientists, but or the gen-

eral public and policymakers — and also know how 

to use tools that help share knowledge and promote

understanding. More about the structure o eective

science communication will be discussed in a uture

nSCI White Paper.

7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 5/17

nSCI White Paper: Science Communication Today Page 5

tHE cURREnt PRoBLEM

We live in a world today where the contribution

made by science is truly staggering and the need or

more science is equally pressing. And yet the Ameri-

can public’s aith in science has been declining or

years. Why? Social psychologists might be able to

explain away some o this decline. Political discoursemight be able to account or more. But science itsel 

is not entirely blameless. Here at the dawn o what

history will someday reer to as the Inormation

Age, science as an institution hasn’t kept pace with

the needs and expectations o society to do a better

 job o communicating. Part o the reason or this

is institutional momentum — o both science itsel 

and the many organizations and networks that create

science. Part is also a lack o leadership on this issue.

Many scientists and their organizations know the

problem exists, but there isn’t any organized guidance

yet on how to improve the overall communication

culture in science, nor is there acceptance among

the oundations and agencies who und science that

better communication is something that needs to be

unded.

So what exactly is the current communication prob-

lem in science? Let’s do an alternate reality exercise.

Suppose you live in a world where there aren’t any 

cookbooks. Te prevailing wisdom is that cookbooks

aren’t necessary because only ches cook and the

language o cooking is too arcane or most people to

interpret. o become a che you need to study lots

o math, and then you get promoted based in part

on the number o recipes you publish in culinary 

 journals. Tese journals own the copyright to the

recipes they publish, which is another reason why 

they can’t appear in cookbooks, even in “dumbed

down” ashion. Te state o collaboration between

ches is a little better than with the public. Tey hold

conerences and peer review each others’ recipes, but

ches specializing in dierent culinary styles never

really interact. Everyonemakes main courses and

desserts but there isn’t a lot

o interdisciplinary sharing

o cooking techniques,

equipment, recipes, best

practices, and so on.

Tis analogy isn’t intended

as an aront to ches,

scientists, or your ability 

to understand a complicated issue. Rather, the point

here is to illustrate the rather absurd nature o some

o the communication gaps in the current relation-

ship between science and itsel, and science and the

general public. Scattered between these gaps are

the outcomes that interdisciplinary collaboration is

lacking, data sharing is hampered by concerns over

secrecy, communication best practices and resources

aren’t available or integrated into the oundations o 

research projects, the general public and policymak-

ers who listen to the general public are too oen mis-

inormed about science (which can trace back to bad

communications), science education isn’t utilizing

the communication tools and techniques that reso-

nate with today’s kids, more science isn’t spinning out

o academic institutions because it isn’t being pack-

aged properly or investment audiences, and more.

And what i anything do these outcomes have in

common? In this paper we suggest that science com-

munication is perhaps the single most important

common issue, and that improving the current cul-

ture o communication in science can lead to wide-

spread benets both or science and the public. In

this paper we will rst examine this communicationculture and then take a look at the discovery and un-

derstanding areas o science communication where

reorm eorts should be ocused: on the discovery 

side, science collaboration, study design, inormatics,

and tech transer, and on the understanding side, sci-

ence writing, marketing, SEM education and public

policy.

First o all, the current culture o science communi-

cation in America is dened and supported by ourmajor pillars: journal publishing, institutional capac-

ity, secrecy, and recognition. Tese pillars also dene

the way that science communication has operated

in the past. Tis structure is not necessarily onerous

(though some have characterized it as such); rather,

understanding this structure is critical to under-

standing what avenues might be open or improving

science communication in the uture.

… the current culture o sciencecommunication in America is dened andsupported by our major pillars: journalpublishing, institutional capacity, secrecy,and recognition.

7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 6/17

nSCI White Paper: Science Communication Today Page 6

PILLAR 1: JoURnAL PUBLISHIng

 The current practice o journal publishing

is the most amiliar straw man to be stoodup in this debate perhaps undeserv

edly so because journals have played an

enormously positive role in science andwill continue to do so. In the traditional

model o journal publishing, scientists

submit papers to select journals in theireld and these papers are anonymously

reviewed by peers (other nontraditional

models also exist, and their popularity isgrowing, as will be discussed later on in

this paper, but the traditional model is still

dominant). Then, a select ew papers getaccepted, edited, and published per

haps the most “mainstream” papers, crit

ics might allege, or the papers that conorm with the current body nowledge,

but in any event the papers that peershave judged to be the most worthy. Hav

ing an article accepted or publication in a

prestigious journal can be very benecialor upandcoming assistant proessors

because establishing a strong record o 

successul publishing is one o the mostimportant actors in whether they will

be oered tenure a lietime position

at their university. However, this “publishor perish” emphasis in tenure decisions

has liely exacerbated the importance o 

 journals in science communication. Readership o these painstainglyproduced

(and oten heavily nanced) articles can

oten be counted in the mere hundreds,and the impact o this wor (whether

measured through citations or other indi

ces) can be ar less than desired. Journalpublishing also comes under re or its

impact on inormation access:

• Most subscriptions are very expensive, which coupled with tight bud

gets means that ewer libraries can

aord them. Some have also ques

tioned whether it is air or the publicto und research and then pay to ac

cess the ndings.

• Journals typically own the copyright

to the nal peerreviewed and ormatted versions o published articles,

meaning that the research details

they contain cannot be widely distributed or shared beyond immediate

“now colleague” peer groups, even

or ree (sometimes or a year or so,sometimes in perpetuity), that non

subscription access to this research

can be restricted or years, and thatinormation releases are usually de

layed by publishers (see Elsevier 2011

or more details on the copyrightpolicies o Elsevier, the world’s largest

 journal publisher). This latter practiceo delaying release, called embargo, is

intended to serve as a mareting tool

to stage the release o new articles to journalists in a predictable manner

and thereby increase the PR value o 

these articles (since news agenciescan say this research is brand new

and just being released).

• Articles are written or experts in the

eld and not or public consumption,

and sometimes can’t event be understood by other scientists woring in

the same eld let alone by scientistsworing in other elds.

•  The journal publishing industry is

very concentrated. The largest three

publishers Elsevier, Springer andWiley, who have bought up many

o their competitors now publish

42% o journal articles (McGuigan2008), and

• From a societal standpoint, or a

generation where easy and eectivecommunication is a centerpiece o 

daily lie, journals can eel lie anach

ronisms and actual barriers to eective communication.

 The issue o journal publishing and its

role in science communication will be ex

plored more ully in a uture nSCI WhitePaper.

PILLAR 2: InStItUtIonAL cAPAcItY

Despite its visibility, journal publishingisn’t the only issue in science communi

cation today. Communications capacity

is generally an aterthought in science.Engaging communities, building part

nerships with other institutions and with

industry, sharing inormation with otherresearchers and with the lay public, us

ing the latest inormatics tools to evaluatedata, and educating policymaers on rele

vant ndings is done more oten than not

on an asavailable and ad hoc basis. Youwon’t nd proessional PR rms running

the communications operations o most

research institutions because these institutions (and their unders) rarely see the

need and thereore haven’t provided the

budget. Science as a eld (although there

are notable exceptions to this generalization) hasn’t yet seen the need to ocus on

communication and und it accordingly,so eective science communication and

collaboration have generally been grossly

undermanned and underunded as a result. Building institutional capacity and

oering assistance where there is none is

where most o nSCI’s wor will be ocused,as discussed later in this paper.

PILLAR 3: SEcREcY

Science has also been accused o being

insular, and this isolation has been citedas the reason or a lac o adequate com

munication. However, there are legitimate

reasons or this dynamic and the extent towhich it occurs diers rom one research

area and institution to the next (Velden

2011). For instance, new nowledge needsto be protected until it can be published,

patented, or otherwise capitalized upon.

 Trade secrets might also be important:When academic chemists wor on indus

tryunded research projects, or instance,

they have to accept a certain tradeoswith regard to protecting industry secrets

(Laszlo 2006). This situation is not new,

and it is not unique to science.

PILLAR 4: REcognItIon

 The need or individual recognition is

undamental to the current state o science communication. Recognition might

ow rom journal publishing (pillar 1), or

discovery (made possible by pillar 3), andis even sometimes related to good PR e

orts or science that captures the public’s

attention (pillar 2). Overall, though, recognition is how scientists survive the tenure

system, how their wor gains credence

with their peers, how it gains currencywith policymaers, how it gets capitalized

upon by publishers, and more. Scientistsneed to be recognized or their wor and

their expertise, and any change in com

munications protocols that unairly biasesthe current system in avor o those with

the best PR sta will never be accepted by

science, nor should it be.

7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 7/17nSCI White Paper: Science Communication Today Page 7

So in summary, science preers to communicate

through journals, there isn’t enough money, interest,

or institutional buy-in yet to make wholesale changes

in how science communicates, and even i and when

this happens, there will still be a need or a certain

amount o secrecy and a need to maintain the meri-

tocracy system o recognition. Tese are the unda-

mentals rom which additional change will need to

ow. nSCI’s ocus on improving science writing, mar-

keting, inormatics, study design and data sharing,

SEM education, science policy and tech transer all

works within — or at least will be contemporaneous

with changes in — how these three pillars are struc-

tured, particularly capacity.

It is also important to note that when many who care

about science communication talk about strategiesor reorm, they oen address only part o the chal-

lenge: how can science teachers teach better, how can

scientists communicate more clearly, and how can

policymakers understand issues better? Tis is ne,

o course: specialization is important, and grants and

donations are easier to come by or discreet causes

like improving SEM education. However, the most

complete, long-lasting and impactul solutions to

these questions are deep and interrelated and involve

rethinking our approach to science communication

rom the ground up.

What are the current challenges in science commu-

nication in the areas where nSCI is ocusing? Te

shaded areas o the next two pages oer an overview.

“dIScoVERY” FocUS AREAS

SCIENCE COLLABORATION: Advanced collaboration between scientists trained in several dierent elds has

become essential in many areas o scientic research. Interdependence, joint ownership and collective responsi

bility or data and data analysis is needed among many modern research teams, even those housed in the samewing o the same institution. In the ace o this need there are wellestablished challenges to collaboration:

distance, common interests, common goals, incentives, trust, organizational and legal barriers and more. Some

research teams have met theses challenges and are ar ahead o the collaboration curve; others lag ar behind.In general, there’s a lot o room or improvement. Databases that share research ndings in a timely and usable

ashion are not common and research collaboration

tools and best practice guidelines are still novel.

SCIENCE INFORMATICS: Inormatics is a budding and

crucial eld. For now, almost every institution and areao scientic research denes inormatics somewhat

dierently but the primary ocus is always on tech

nology how computers can help us discover more.Some o the specic challenges currently being tac

led by inormatics includes integrating widely diering

data ormats in research datasets, standardizing data

ormats or uture research collaboration eorts, identiying and pulling more data into depositories and architecting designs or data storage, retrieval and use, and

developing new tools that can help analyze and sit through increasingly unmanageable volumes o “big data.”Despite the current attention being paid to these technologycentered challenges, there also needs to be more

ocus on big picture eorts. Inormatics isn’t just about computer systems, but about our human ability to peerinto research and mae insights and connections and integrate new and helpul perspectives in short, to do a

better job o communicating. Flooding more advanced computer systems with more data will no doubt lead to

remarable breathroughs, but being able to intuit patterns, applications, and trends by integrating and comparing the right sets o data, as well as sharing tools and best practices between disciplines could, on the other

hand, lead to grand new applications, solutions, and discoveries.

SCIENCE DESIGN: Research study design is one o the most welldeveloped areas o science. Legions o experts have compiled and rened years o best practice guidelines on the proper design, conduct and analysis

o research studies, covering everything rom human subject protection to statistical methods. However, as the

expectations o our inormation society continue to evolve at breanec speed, holes have developed in bestpractice ramewors. Communication is one such shortcoming. Many studies with potentially arreaching im

pact still allocate only a nominal budget or sharing ndings and communicating these ndings to the public even the bare essentials lie building a good website or the study, eeping it current, preparing policy bries

and press releases, and maing important connections with other researchers in the eld through social media,

email, and other direct outreach (to the credit o researchers, conerences are also widely used as communication tools but these are not adequate by themselves to reach beyond peer communities). Other studies might

have ambitious enrollment plans or potentially liesaving treatments but an inadequate budget or participant

recruitment and enrollment, and no onsta expertise or writing and designing compelling outreach materi

… solutions to thesequestions … involverethinking our approach toscience communication romthe ground up.

7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 8/17nSCI White Paper: Science Communication Today Page 8

als. Databases are another shortcoming o modern research

studies. Lie communication components, data collectionand analysis isn’t usually designed with sharing in mind. Data

is ept under loc and ey until journal articles are published,

and comparison with other research datasets is rarely a consideration, let alone a practical objective. Study selection itsel 

is a third shortcoming the issue o whether many research

studies are even necessary. Publish or perish pressures may be

producing a glut o studies that didn’t need to be done in therst place or that should have been done better. In summary,

designing studies with better communication and data components, increasing collaboration, and reducing the pressure

to publish studies will all help improve current research study

designs.

SCIENCE TRANSFER: “Technology Transer,” as the term is nor

mally used, usually encompasses issues ocused on acquiringand licensing patents. It’s an important ocus o many higher

education institutions who see more eective tech transer

programs (rightly or wrongly) as a potential economic engines

or their universities and local economies. Some tech transerorganizations have had more success than others. The most

recent survey conducted by the Association o University Technology Managers (AUTM), indicates that 11 o its roughly 200

member universities accounted or more than hal o all the

licensing and royalty revenues generated rom university patents in 2010 (Wylie 2011). In addition, only 16% o tech trans

er oces retained enough o the generated revenue to covertheir ongoing costs, meaning that the vast majority o these

oces run at a perpetual decit. This lac o adequate und

ing is one reason why some tech transer oces are more suc

cessul than others. Another reason is institutional capacity orcommunicationrelated unctions: successul oces add value

to ideas and have business, mareting, and communicationsexpertise inhouse or oncall to develop promising ideas and

shepherd them into the maretplace. Yet another reason is

communication itsel: involved transer processes lie in pharmaceutics requires een attention to communication process

es between technical teams, teams and regulators, dierent

organizations, and more. Focus is another issue that could beimproved. Tech transer doesn’t need to single out only on pat

entable technology; with adequate investment and stang it

can and should also ocus more on science (Microsot 2006).

“UndERStAndIng” FocUS AREAS

SCIENCE MARkETI NG: Mareting is a ey component in the success o every public acing enterprise.

In science, mareting simply means communicating science clearly and eectively or the benet o 

both science and the general public. What are some o the situations where this applies? There are bothinternal and external applications o better mareting, some which overlap. Internally, the old adage

about how the world will beat a path to your door i you invent a better mousetrap is unortunately

alse. It always has been, but in the meritocracy o science this adage just seems lie it should be true.Better communication tools mean more eective, timely, and crossdisciplinary collaboration, which

might pave the road to more discovery. At the crossroads, better mareting is also useul or more mun

dane but essential goals lie reporting to donors and raising more unds or research. Externally, better communication is critical or everything rom educating and inuencing policymaers to spinning

successul tech transer initiatives, enrolling participants in studies, getting ids interested in science,and more. There is much room or improvement in the current model o science mareting, and this

improvement is rooted in improving the institutional resources, capacity and budgets or this ind o 

wor, which will rst require proving the cost, impact, and eciency benets o this approach.

SCIENCE WRITING: Eective science writing underscores everything in science communication. Unor

tunately, writing is a eld where everyone eels they’re an expert, and changing an inormation “owner”

culture lie science into an editorial culture as is normal in any publicacing enterprise (where special

ists are ultimately responsible or crating messages or specic goals and customer groups) can be verydicult. In academia, which considers its primary customers to be other scientists, writing is directed

mostly toward journals. Access issues aside, this peertopeer writing is oten so dense that it becomesunintelligible, even to other scientists. Improving access to more journal articles in more disciplines is

a worthy goal but understanding these articles can require a translator, not only because o the sub ject complexity but also because o the inaccessible writing style that has become the lingua ranca

o science journals. As science writing ventures into journalism there is oten a lac o understanding

between scientists and journalists about what constitutes eective writing nding the right andnecessary balance between clarity and accuracy. And when science writing attempts to bypass jour

nalists and go directly to the public, scientists and their institutions rarely have the inhouse expertise

to do an adequate job o communicating (Tanona 2011). Explanations or this dynamic vary, but thecommunication eld’s lac o standing in research science may bear most o the blame as well as most

o the potential or reorm.

SCIENCE POLICY: Science policy in America is at the core o just about everything water, energy,health, agriculture, conservation, climate, deense, and more. And o course, many o these issues are

also lined and have multiple implications at local, regional, national and global levels. Thereore, giventhe importance o good science policy it’s critical to our utures to reverse the trend in America o po

liticizing science policy. It is no longer possible to ormulate policies or the public good by drawing

on a single set o scientic acts. Every camp has their own “experts” and “acts” and the public is let tochoose sides. This is an outgrowth o our inormation society, but it is also an outgrowth o poor science

communication. Creating science policy in America that is more responsive to science begins with im

proving the communications inrastructure o science. Sound science is necessary or inormed policy

7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 9/17nSCI White Paper: Science Communication Today Page 9

maing but it is not by itsel sucient. Policy recommendations also need to include storylines and plausible options

developed through collaboration with a wide range o staeholders. And these new policy options aren’t the bettermouse trap to which customers will naturally oc. Options need to be presented in ways that reach their audiences,

and options need to eectively rebut the science nonsense that can ourish in our soundbite culture. Establishing

more crosscutting oundations or science policy is also important active collaborations between research institutions, corporations, inrastructure providers (transportation, energy, etc.), STEM education, and more.

SCIENCE EDUCATION: We’ve all heard the sobering news about STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) ed

ucation: there aren’t enough qualied STEM teachers in our k12 systems, most high school students graduate withoutan adequate bacground in math and science, and students who choose to study math, science and engineering in

college have very high rates o attrition compared to other majors (CRS 2008, National Science Board 2012) meaning that most switch majors or don’t nish their degrees at all. nSCI believes that better science communication can

help repair this situation in schools, in the public sphere, in the public policy arena, and more. Science education

doesn’t start in the classroom, ater all, but with ids getting excited about science, and science policy wors betteri the public understands and is inspired by science and discovery. Building and maintaining this excitement and in

spiration is slow pitch sotball or mareters: maing textboos more entertaining, maing sure teachers are properly

trained and educated and have the right inds o support, maing sure that science education has a strong handsoncomponent, and maing sure that Congress ollows through on its requent promises to maredly increase unding or

STEM education (commitments that have recently been piced up by private industry due to the increasingly urgent

need or a more STEMliterate domestic wororce). STEM reorm eorts also need to ocus internally, however: is there

a more undamental reason why ids don’t or can’t ollow through with science that’s not related to homewor, teachers and unding? Examining the way science is communicated to students will help, as well as examining the role, ne

cessity, and impact o math education requirements and methods in science education since math education is clearlythe weaest lin in collegelevel science education. This issue will be explored in detail in a uture nSCI White Paper.

cALcULAtIng tHE IMPActS

What are the impacts o this communication decit

in science? Many have already been outlined in theprevious section. In general these impacts can be

grouped into three categories: restricted access, lost

opportunities, and a lack o civic engagement.

RESTRICTED ACCESS

A lack o access to science inormation is the core

problem in science communication today. Improving

access will improve science, and public engagement

in science. Access issues run the gamut rom journals

to writing styles to database interoperability issues:

• “PILLAR” ISSUES—JOURNALS, INSTITU- TIONAL CAPACITY, SECRECY AND REC-

OGNITION: Most academic journals are not

“open access” (OA or short), which means

the inormation they publish is owned by 

the publisher and is only accessible only 

 via subscription. While OA repositories are

on the rise they aren’t the norm, so most

peer-reviewed journal articles aren’t reely 

and publicly available (until the journal’s

copyright expires), versions o these article

that substantially duplicate content can’t be

widely circulated, and pre-print versions can

only be used or limited academic purposes.

Tere are exceptions to these restrictions,

and authors can sometimes pay or addi-

tional rights, but this description is generally 

correct. So, or instance, suppose a research-

er publishes a journal article announcing

her discovery o the unied eld theory, and

then wants to write a book describing this

inormation in lay terms. She can’t because

or-prot or widespread circulation o her

work to anyone other than her “know col-

leagues” is prohibited by the publishers (or

more details on journal copyright policy, see

the Project Sherpa website listed in the “addi-tional reading” section o this paper’s reer-

ence section; also see Elsevier 2011). Tis

throttle on inormation ow is normal in the

publishing world and a normal part o pro-

tecting intellectual property in any situation.

However, academic journals—perhaps much

like pharmaceutical companies developing

 vaccines or HIV/AIDS or Malaria — oc-

cupy a precarious intersection between ree

What are the impacts?…restricted access, lostopportunities, and a lack 

o civic engagement.

7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 10/17nSCI White Paper: Science Communication Today Page 10

commerce and the public good, and the or-

prot model doesn’t always work well under

these circumstances. Subscription costs are

a related concern about journal publishing.

In the past, libraries and research institutions

have been charged (literally) with the re-

sponsibility o making sure this inormation

is available. However, in recent years, journal

prices, which are already high to begin with

— oen more than $1,000/year — have risen

at well above the rate o ination (our to ve

percent) against the backdrop o decreased

unding or libraries across the country.

As a result, between 2009 and 2010, data

rom the Association o Research Libraries

(ARL) showed a slight decrease in average

expenditures or academic journal subscrip-tions, meaning that many subscriptions were

cancelled — 34 percent o libraries (mostly 

academic) in 2011 cut subscriptions, and

44 percent planned to do so in 2012 (Bosch

2011).

Bad publicity (and other issues related to a

lack o institutional capacity or science com-

munication) and secrecy have also played

a major role in reducing access to science

inormation.  How many science studies have

gone completely unnoticed over the years

simply because they became buried in an ob-

scure journal or perhaps never made it into

a journal but got le on the dissertation shel 

o their university library or locked into the

database o their industry sponsor? It’s im-

possible to calculate the loss to science due

to lack o access, but going orward, better

 visibility and sharing are certainly possible,

and with this visibility and sharing will come

more benets.

Breaking down the barriers posed by science

communication pillars should not be lim-

ited to journals, either. Tere is also a lot o brilliant work that goes unnoticed by science

because it shows up in the wrong venue —

in a book or a magazine article instead o a

 journal article, or instance. Science doesn’t

have a magic ball that sees all. It still takes a

deliberate eort to track and integrate inor-

mation, even in today’s world o seemingly 

eortless inormation access.

• NSCI FOCUS AREA

ISSUES: A lack o 

access and a resulting

lack o opportunity 

results rom the chal-

lenges described in

the previous section.

Subscription issues

aside, or instance, journal articles are most

oen written in a style o English that isnearly impossible to decipher by anyone out-

side a particular area o expertise (and even

experts can have a hard time understanding

 journal articles). And math and science text-

books oen suer rom the same approach.

Tere’s a general rule that Institutional

Review Boards use when evaluating whether

 very complicated medical consent orms can

be understood, and this rule is that public-

acing science materials need be written at an

eighth grade level and no higher. What does

this mean? Are college students and scien-

tists incapable o understanding college-level

writing? No. But until students get into grad-

uate school and are rmly entrenched in the

communication style o a particular eld, the

biggest barriers to understanding might be

the way inormation is communicated and

not necessarily the inormation itsel. Te

same can be said or making interdisciplin-

ary learning more accessible. Databases are

another area where access can be improved

— within studies, within elds, and between

elds. Eorts to improve collaboration will

yield some improvement in this area, as will

advancements in inormatics. For now, data-

sets are rarely shared, and even more rarely 

integrated (which requires understanding all

o the assumptions, notations, abbreviations,

calculations, and other issues involved). Pro-

prietary data is locked up in study sponsor

databases or uture commercial use or per-

haps to protect participant privacy, and lots

o data never gets mentioned at all, particu-

larly or unsuccessul studies. Making data

… the biggest barriers to understandingmight be the way inormation iscommunicated and not necessarily theinormation itsel.

7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 11/17nSCI White Paper: Science Communication Today Page 11

access easier — perhaps even universal —

will require a hugely collaborative eort and

agreement in science, but the result could be

mark one o the most important advances in

scientic research in our lietimes.

LOST OPPORTUNITIES

Lost research dollars, delayed opportunities, missed

discoveries aecting science and health, misdirected

policies, environmental damage — the list goes on.

We can only speculate about the total value and im-

pact o lost opportunities in SEM education, public

policy, and collaboration, but clearly there have been

impacts. Te impacts o some o these lost opportu-

nities are measurable, though. For instance:

• In cancer research, a recent report by New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital (Sinai 2011)

concluded that over 90 percent o all clinical

trials are delayed in large part because o di-

culty with patient enrollment — a specialty 

that nSCI considers to be part o science

marketing. In addition, about 20 percent o 

principal investigators ail to enroll even one

patient, another 30 percent ail to meet their

overall goals or patient enrollment, and 40

percent o cancer trials unded by NIH are

never completed or published. O course, not

all o this patient enrollment shortall is due

to poor marketing, but some o it may be; as

people who review lots o research studies

realize, there are no widespread best prac-

tice guidelines or how to enroll participants

online, how to eectively reach out to your

community or participants, and so on. Study 

marketing is oen

a seat-o-the-pants

eort where proj-

ect managers pull

double-duty as

marketing manag-

ers and with very 

little or no market-

ing experience or

budget.

• ech transer has

been an important

policy initiative or the past several decades

but its success is very uneven across institu-

tions and it could accomplish more. In their

zeal to capitalize on the work o proessors,many tech transer systems end up doing

 just the opposite, instead creating under-

unded systems that patent ideas and then

leave them in the dustbin while simultane-

ously preventing proessors rom writing

about their research in journals (since the

tech transer process transers the copy-

right out o the hands o the proessors). A

2010 study by Indiana University (IU 2010)highlighted the impact o the impact o this

approach, nding that 30% o scientists were

concerned enough with their in-house tech

transer ofce to take a “backdoor” route

to commercialization (routes which, by the

way, were also more successul). Tis mat-

ter aside, ederal unding o tech research

has increased while pure science research

unding has remained steady — a byprod-

uct o a policy ocus that preers unding

research with patentable components. Tis

ocus is predictable, but it doesn’t need to be

permanent. Huge swaths o science research

are overlooked by tech transer ofces and

opportunities to integrate discoveries, apply 

new methods, and more haven’t been pur-

sued. And this extended reach doesn’t end

with pure science. Te world also needs in-

novation in anthropological and geopolitical

perspectives, economics insight, and more.

ech transer ofces can be in a position to

help integrate university knowledge — to

be knowledge transer centers more so thansimply technology licensing centers.

LACk OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

Science doesn’t do a good job across o the board

o connecting with the public and this act aects

everything related to science, rom research unding

to policy to education. At the same time, many have

observed that (or reasons not entirely understood

In their zeal to capitalize on the work o proessors, many tech transer systems endup doing just the opposite, instead creatingunderunded systems that patent ideas

and then leave them in the dustbin whilesimultaneously preventing proessors romwriting about their research in journals… .

7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 12/17nSCI White Paper: Science Communication Today Page 12

yet) those who are skeptical o science are held to a

lower standard o proo and are increasingly gain-

ing in inuence. Tere are exceptions, o course, but

improving the civic engagement ability o science

is important to our uture. How can this be done?

By integrating communications into the ramework 

o science. Tis doesn’t necessarily mean spending

more money, just changing how it’s spent. Te result-

ing increase in research eectiveness and efciency 

could be startling. Te basis or this recommenda-

tion is simple: Without adequate communications

support, science simply can’t explain com-

plicated issues to the media in a compelling

way (Holland 2010). Tis is just a common

sense nding or business proessionals, o 

course; Steve Jobs never expected a single

research team o Apple engineers by itsel todesign a product’s electronics, inormation

architectures, user interaces, industrial de-

signs, packaging, and marketing campaigns.

Building and rolling out successul science

and technology takes a village. In marketing

and communications rms, teams o experts

work together to distill their client’s key 

messages, edit and tailor language, produce graph-

ics, identiy audiences, contact opinion leaders, and

more. And yet in science we expect a researcher who

may be an expert in climate change to go on CNN

and change public opinion by hersel by sheer orce

o intellect. It’s an unair expectation, and one that

clearly doesn’t work.

But the engagement capacity o science has more

than just institutional barriers. Tere are time barri-

ers as well. A 2000 report by Wellcome revealed that

many scientists eel too constrained by the day-to-

day requirements o their jobs to even carry out

their research let alone oversee more sophisticated

communication strategies (Wellcome 2010). What i 

time wasn’t an issue though, and this new communi-

cations work was handled by outside experts? Ten

how would scientists eel about getting communica-

tions help? Scientists today eel they are expected to

discuss how science aects society — particularly in

hot-button elds like stem cell research and climate

change — but most are unprepared or unwilling to

do so (Mizumachi 2011). Indeed, most complain

about the experience o science communication

activities. In addition to the time constraints they 

perceive a lack o support rom peers and little career

benet. Very ew surveys, meanwhile, have ocused

on the difculties, barriers and motivations encoun-

tered by scientists in public science communication.

More inormation is needed so the appropriate kinds

o assistance can be oered to scientists and the right

kinds o “cultural” changes to research institutions

and unding agencies can be promoted and devel-

oped. It’s important to note that in the Wellcome

report, most scientists reported being unaware o 

existing communications support oered by their

unders or institutions that they could utilize.

Still, building true civic engagement in science may 

require more than just improving the communica-

tions capacity o science. American University’sMatthew Nisbet argues — speaking specically to the

issue o climate change — that our vision o science

communication wherein “Americans are spectators

in a political system where decision-

making on climate change is handled

by experts, policymakers, environ-

mentalists, and industry” needs to be

changed (Nisbet 2010). He argues that

the goals o science education need to

be much broader, with an emphasis on

civic education and engagement, which

means “empowering, enabling, moti-

 vating, inorming, and educating the

public around not just the technical but

also the political and social dimensions

o climate change.”

“Besides cultivating a broader range o knowledge,”

he writes, “civic education requires promoting aec-tive outcomes such as increased eelings o trust and

efcacy; investing in a new communication inra-

structure and participatory culture; and recruiting

citizens who can help their peers learn, connect, and

plan.” In addition, unlike the emphasis on science

literacy which is one-directional and ocuses on a

“knowledge decient” public, civic education and en-

gagement “is as much about inorming the public as

… in science we expect a researcherwho may be an expert in climate change

to go on CNN and change publicopinion by hersel by sheer orce o intellect. It’s an unair expectation, andone that clearly doesn’t work.

7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 13/17nSCI White Paper: Science Communication Today Page 13

it is about inorming experts and decision-makers.”

Education in this paradigm is “a two-way process

where experts and decision-makers seek input and

learn rom the public about preerences, needs, in-

sights, and ideas relative to climate change solutions

and policy options.”

O course, the mere availability o inormation

doesn’t mean the public will use it or use it uni-

ormly. Knowledge gaps have developed along

socioeconomic and ideological lines because we no

longer get our news rom the same sources and these

dierent sources have so many dierent biases. How-

ever, more inormation, more eective inormation

presentation, and more civic engagement are good

developments and will only help solve the problems

discussed in this paper. Knowledge gaps and dier-

entiation are dierent problems altogether that aectar more than just science education.

AddItIonAL PRoBLEMS

Changing the culture and practices o communica-

tion in science won’t happen overnight. Tere are

numerous challenges to overcome. Some o these

challenges have already been described, but many 

more have only been hinted at. For instance:

• PRESSURE FROM DIGITAL NATIVES:

Scholarly communications is currently in a

halway state between the digital and print

world, with print still being ar more in-

uential (Bourne 2011). In the meantime,

new researchers have arrived in science who

were born into a world that has always had

powerul desktop computers, the Internet,

and ree and easy access

to a world o inorma-

tion. It’s reasonable to

expect there will be

increasing pressure

rom these digital na-

tives or change rom

within science. But in

an environment where

knowledge is currency,

signicant and rapid

change is unlikely to occur without a broad

understanding o the issues and agreement

on the solutions. Can a “sae” environment

be constructed throughout science that will

allow a new communications paradigm to

develop?

• RISk-AVERSE CLIMATE: Since the current

reward system in science is tightly coupled

with journal impact actors and citation

measures like the Hirsch Index, scientists

tend to be risk-averse when they are experi-

menting with new models o scientic com-

munication (Velden 2011).

•

SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES: Will scientic soci-eties support new communication models?

Teir missions support doing so, but their

business models may not given that they also

publish major journals.

• PRIVATE INDUSTRY RESISTANCE: Pub-

lishers and other commercial entities own

mountains o content. It varies by discipline

— chemistry data is almost entirely locked

up behind pay rewalls (Adams 2009) —

but or the most part, these entities need to

collaborate in any new inormation sharing

system and in supplying new data reposito-

ries with older inormation.

• PATIENCE: Te benets that will accruerom improving the deault communication

posture o science will take time to be real-

ized. But in our bottom-line driven und-

ing climate where results need to be proven

quickly and the pressure to cut “non-essen-

tial” budget items is high, there may be little

patience or allowing enough time to prove

the worthiness o this concept.

tHE BASIc SoLUtIon

Te alternate reality world o cooking described ear-

lier in this paper is utterly unamiliar to us today, but

it’s actually not that ar-etched: cooking was once a

much more exclusive enterprise than it is today, and

the birth o an industry occurred because o access.

Books like Te Joy of Cooking  and celebrities like Ju-

lia Child helped democratize and popularize the cu-

Since the current reward system inscience is tightly coupled with journalimpact actors and citation measures… scientists tend to be risk-averse

when they are experimenting with new models o scientic communication.

7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 14/17nSCI White Paper: Science Communication Today Page 14

linary arts, making cooking accessible and spurring

innovation, sharing, participation, understanding,

excitement and development in the culinary industry.

Awareness o the communication problem in sci-

ence is also growing today but only in specic areas

and only in ts and starts. Tere isn’t widespread

acceptance yet o the right role o communicationin science, nor is there widespread recognition yet

that science communication is a unique discipline as

discussed in this paper’s introduction.

However, there are glimmers o hope.

A recent study (Jensen 2008) revealed

that scientists who make civic engage-

ment a priority are also more academ-

ically active, perhaps because their

work helps stimulate and promote

their research. Big data is also begin-

ning to gain traction. Companies and

 venture capitalists are embracing the

possibilities with zeal, making big

data one o the hottest I investments

in 2012, and big data could soon be at the lead-

ing edge o discovery in data-intensive science like

genomics research. Elsewhere, a number o ocused

eorts are underway to address other parts o the sci-

ence communication problem, including courses thathelp scientists communicate better, organizations

dedicated to improving science writing and SEM

education, growing discussion sites or scientists, and

nascent movements to reorm the academic journal

publishing system (including the recent 2012 boycott

against Elsevier; see Bell 2012 or more inormation).

With respect to the publishing issue, more OA pub-

lishing resources are being established (the online

OA journal PLoS ONE is now the world’s largest

repository o peer-reviewed research work), more

universities are setting up their own OA repositories,

and large commercial publishers like Nature and

Springer are increasing their OA oerings. OA pub-

lishing in PubMed Central has long been required

or all NIH-unded research. What more can be

done? Some have argued, or instance, that all works

unded by ederal research dollars—not just NIH

research—should be OA: i taxpayers pay or it, they 

should own it. Others have advocated reorming the

 journal system and its ties to tenure altogether. Does

the gold standard or what constitutes a “research

object” need to be a journal article, or can we utilize

some other mix o measures (Bourne 2011)? And

does anonymous peer review (the current system)

work just as well as more open methods? Already in

use with some journals, open review means publish-

ing reviewer comments along with the manuscript in

an online discussion orum, the scientic community 

gets invited to join the debate, and aer a period o a

ew weeks the authors are asked to revise or deend

their manuscript based on eedback (Velden 2011,

Pöschl 2008).

ech transer eorts are also garnering more atten-

tion as universities look or more sources o revenue

to oset shrinking budgets. Recently released rec-

ommendations rom the Association o University 

echnology Managers (AUM) to the Obama Ad-

ministration include unding tech transer ofces di-

rectly, unding proo-o-concept centers where ideas

can be test-driven beore going to market, unding

mentorship programs, and oering tax credits or

investments in early-stage companies. Giving sci-

ence research more attention instead o 

only patentable technology will also be

important. Whether or not this attention

leads to rapid marketplace applications

shouldn’t be the only metric o success

since getting more o a birds-eye view on

undamental innovation and integrationwill also pay dividends in both the mar-

ketplace and or discovery. ech transer

ofces will need to gear up or this kind

o reinvigorated involvement, though,

which won’t be possible or most universities in

today’s austere budget environment. For most ofces,

patentability and marketability will likely remain the

ultimate measure o merit in science. More on tech

transer will be discussed in a uture nSCI White

Paper.

ScI’s SoLUtIon

Te thoughtul work and attention that many indi-

 viduals and organizations are now turning toward the

issues described in this paper will eventually produce

change. Te goal o nSCI is to help organize this

change by raising awareness o the issues involved

Tere isn’t widespread acceptance yet o the right role o communication in science,nor is there widespread recognition yet

that science communication is a uniquediscipline .… However, there are glimmerso hope.

7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 15/17nSCI White Paper: Science Communication Today Page 15

among science communities and science und-

ing agencies, build communities o individuals and

organizations who support this change and will make

change occur, and provide both unding support and

best practices guidance to help make these changes

widespread, sustainable, visible and eective.

It’s important to emphasize that this cultural shithat needs to occur in science won’t happen by simply 

writing papers about it. Tis shi needs to be encour-

aged and supported by ve actions — actions that are

at the heart o what nSCI is doing. Tese actions are

listed in the le column o the ollowing table. Te

specic activities nSCI is currently undertaking to

help improve science communication are listed in the

right column.

gEnERAL ActIonS nEEdEd SPEcIFIc nScI ActIVItIES

1. Increase awareness o the importance o better

communication throughout

science

• Drive change in how communication needs to bebetter integrated into the ramewor o science

research

• Continuously spea with staeholders to get

eedbac and learn about and share new ideas,initiatives, and success stories in science communi

cation.

• Facilitate conversations about current communica

tion practices (such as journal publishing) to helpdevelop new approaches to ensure better inorma

tion access

2. Share lessons o experience and

best practices• Create, collect and promote conversations on best

practices in science writing, mareting, collabora

tion, education, policy, design, inormatics, andtech transer, and drive connections between these

disciplines

• Publish and distribute the rst boo on this topic

3. Build communication

communities• Serve as a resource hub, inormation portal, and

umbrella group or the many organizations cur

rently involved in science communicationrelatedwor 

• Create, manage, and grow communities o scien

tists, inormatics experts, educators, and others

who are interested in improving science communication

4. Provide tools and assistance • Create ree but managed datasharing resources to

ensure data comparability

• Subsidize the mareting and communication

needs o science research, STEM education, and

other sciencerelated projects with broad potentialimpact

5. Prove the worthiness o thisapproach

• Document the success o more ecient and eective communication methods in science and

promote this inormation within science and also

to donors and policymaers.

Te longer-term projects nSCI undertakes and the

scope and timing o these projects depends on the

organization’s unding outlook. nSCI is currently in

the early stages o growth and is still building its ma-

 jor sources o nancing. o help support nSCI, please

 visit www.nationalscience.org .

7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 16/17nSCI White Paper: Science Communication Today Page 16

SoURcES

Adams, N., “Semantic Chemistry,” Semantic Web Technology , January 2009, accessed March 2, 2012, http://semanticweb.com/semanticchemistry_b10684?red=su

Bell, Eleanor, “Academics boycott journal publisher,” ABC News, February 17, 2012, accessed March 2, 2012, http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/02/17/3433568.htm

Bosch, Stephen, kittie Henderson, and Heather klusendor, “Periodicals Price Survey 2011: Under Pressure, Times are Changing,” Library Journal , April 14, 2011, accessed March2, 2012, http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/ljinprintcurrentissue/890009403/periodicals_price_survey_2011_.html.csp

Bourne, Phil, et al, “Force11 White Paper: Improving The Future o Research Communications and eScholarship,” October 28, 2011, accessed March 2, 2012, http://orce11.org/sites/deault/les/attachments/Force11Maniesto20111028.pd 

Guttenplan, D.D., “Internet Rufes Pricey Scholarly Journals,” New York Times, September 18, 2011, accessed March 2, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/world/

europe/19ihteducLede19.html?pagewanted=all

Holland, Greg, “Improving Science Communication in an Era o Media Diversity,” drat, 2010, accessed March 2, 2012, http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/holland/les/Communicating_Science_Discussion_Paper_V2.4E.pd 

“IOM and Mount Sinai Collaborate to Examine Issue o Declining Participation in Clinical Trials,” Mount Sinai Hospital press release, June 27, 2011, accessed March 2, 2012, http://

www.mountsinai.org/aboutus/newsroom/pressreleases/iomandmountsinaicollaboratetoexamineissueodecliningparticipationinclinicaltrials

“IU study: Signicant number o academic researchers bypass tech transer oces,” Indiana University website article, accessed March 2, 2012, http://homepages.indiana.edu/web/page/normal/14944.html

kuenzi, Jerey J., “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: Bacground, Federal Policy, and Legislative Action,” CRS Report for Congress, March 21,

2008, accessed March 2, 2012, http://www.as.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33434.pd 

Laszlo, P., “On the SelImage o Chemists, 19502000,” HYLE-International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 12(1), 2006.

McGuigan, Glenn S., and Robert D. Russell, “The Business o Academic Publishing: A Strategic Analysis o the Academic Journal Publishing Industry and its Impact on the Future

o Scholarly Publishing,” Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship 9:3 (Winter 2008), accessed March 2, 2012, http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n03/mcguigan_g01.html

Mizumachi, Eri, k. Matsuda, k. kano, M. kawaami and k. kato, “Scientists’ attitudes toward a dialogue with the public: a study using “science caes”,  Journal of Science Communi-cation 10(04) (November 28, 2011), accessed March 2, 2012, http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/10/04/Jcom1004%282011%29A02/Jcom1004%282011%29A02.pd 

National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 1201), 2012, accessed March 2, 2012, http://www.ns.gov/statistics/seind12

Nisbet, Matthew, “Civic Education About Climate Change: OpinionLeaders, Communication Inrastructure, and Participatory Culture,” white paper or National AcademiesClimate Change Education Roundtable (December 6, 2010), accessed March 2, 2012, http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Climate_Change_Education_Nisbet_Wor

shop_paper.pd 

Pöschl, U., and T. koop, “Interactive open access publishing and collaborative peer review or improved scientic communication and quality assurance,” Information Services &

Use 28 (2008).

7/29/2019 Science Communication Today

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-communication-today 17/17SC h P S C d P

 Tanona, Scott, et al, “Scientists’ public communication values,” unpublished, 2009, access on March 2, 2012, http://www.su.edu/philos/ethicssciencecommunication/scien

tists_public_communication_values.pd 

“The Role o Scientists in Public Debate,” The Wellcome Trust, 2000, accessed on March 2, 2012, accessed on March 2, 2012, http://www.wellcome.ac.u/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/documents/web_document/wtd003425.pd 

“Towards 2020 Science,” Microsot Corporation, March 2006, accessed March 2, 2012, http://research.microsot.com/enus/um/cambridge/projects/towards2020science/

Velden, Theresa, and Carl Lagoze, “The Value o New Scientic Communication Models or Chemistry,” white paper or “New Models or scholarly Communication in Chemistry”

worshop (October 2008), accessed March 2, 2012, http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/14150

“Ways to Use Journal Articles Published by Elsevier: A Practical Guide,” Elsevier, 2011, accessed March 2, 2012, http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/sites/deault/les/lcp0404.pd 

Wylie, Catarina, “University Tech Transer 2.0: Strategies or getting more innovation rom public universities.” Cell Cycle 10:8 (April 15, 2011): 11691173, accessed March 2, 2012,

http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/cc/InsiderCC108.pd 

Additional reading lins:

•  Tenue trends: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/survivalinacademiathetenuretracnottaen.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

• Current tenure policies: Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure rom the American Association o University Proessors

•

List o OA journals in all elds and languages: Directory o Open Access Journals

• Searchable database o publisher policies about copyright and archiving: Project SHERPA.