19 THE ROLE OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION IN SHAPING KNOWLEDGE

BIOLOGY COMBINED SCIENCE GCSE (9–1) GATEWAY
BIS SCIENCE AND SOCIETY COMMUNITY CHALLENGE GRANT SCHEME
CHARLES UNIVERSITY OF PRAGUE FACULTY OF SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF CROP AND SOIL SCIENCE RECRUITMENT INFORMATION
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE SUMMARY OF ALL
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES TAUGHT

THE ROLE OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION IN SHAPING KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH IDENTITIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

19

THE ROLE OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION IN SHAPING KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH IDENTITIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.


Ligia Parra-Esteban, Researcher at Fundación Voc de Investigación de la Comunicación entre Científicos. Bogotá. Colombia. June 10, 1996.



It is a privilege and a honor for me to be invited to give this presentation at the Knowledge and Discourse Conference. In the course of my presentation I want to invite you to reflect upon two sets of related questions: How much do we know about communication among scientists? How can we improve the production, distribution, and popularization of scientific knowledge for the betterment of humanity? At the turn of the century, these are two sets of related questions difficult for us to avoid and risky for us to continue to ignore.

Should we all face the science communication problems among scientists in developed and developing countries and try to understand and work on those problems? It is probably naive to raise questions about problems among scientists at a time when the two cultures problem is as alive and polemic as ever before. 1 But I have no doubt that if we really want to democratize science, we need to face another communication problem between scientists in central and peripheral countries. Will scientists be able to successfully face this new challenge?


Current available knowledge, theories, and literature on the subject of communication among scientists has been produced in developed industrialized countries. As far as I know, no knowledge exists and very little discourse takes place on this particular field of research in developing countries. All available knowledge on the subject of communication among scientists describes, analyzes and speculates on acts and processes, programs and communications projects among researchers doing science in the developed world. How can we use this knowledge in science policy design and in research projects on science communication in peripheral countries? As we will see in this presentation, at a theoretical level, translation and contextualization are necessary. But a lot more than scientific theories are necessary to successfully accomplish this task. We will also need clear values and change in scientific practices and cultures in central and peripheral countries.


Knowledge and discourse on the subject of science communication are not the only missing elements that should be incorporated in science and technology policy in developing countries. It is a fact that their policy design and implementation, for a variety of reasons, usually does not incorporate theoretical developments in science and technology achieved in the rest of the world over the last forty years. This tendency includes gender-based perceptions of science, science and law, public understanding of science, communication among scientists, and social and multicultural epistemology, among other modern specialties.

When researchers in the field of science communication in developing countries try to apply theories, concepts and science communication models such as the famous invisible college or the sprawling network metaphors, they soon discover that these concepts do not fit the realities of communication dynamics among scientists doing research on the periphery of science. Clearly enough, theoretical equivalence is not the only factor affecting research work in developing countries. In consequence, science communication research in developing countries must provide answers to a variety of fundamental questions if we wish to seriously consider the world’s future scientific and technological development. In this age of globalization, we need to do research in communication among scientists in developed and developing countries if we want to have plausible answers to questions such as: What is the purpose of scientific knowledge? 2 Should we defend the idea that scientific knowledge is a public good? Do scientific knowledge production, dissemination and popularization have to be accessible to all countries and circulate freely? 3


The subject of my presentation is communication among scientists in developing countries, emphasizing myriad vicious circles and other existing problems. My presentation objective is to highlight the importance of fully understanding the role that science communication plays in the development of peripheral science countries, especially in areas such as biodiversity and environmental studies, which affect the quality of life not only in developing countries but throughout the entire world.



2. A GLIMPSE AT SCIENCE COMMUNICATION.


Let me start from the notion that communication, information and science are involved in constructing each other in every society. According to science historians, scientific knowledge has been reconstructed by scientific discourse among scientists of all civilizations ever since Babylon. 4 Scientific development has been achieved thanks to communication and information acts and processes among scientists of all times. As a result of this permanent dialogue among scientists everywhere, and the use of communication technology existing at any given moment throughout history, scientists have been able to communicate to us all the scientific knowledge that we call modern science and technoscience. It was little science from the beginning until Newton, and it became big science starting with Einstein. 5 Evidently, at the turn of the twentieth century, science and technoscience are central activities in developed countries, and peripheral and marginal in developing countries. Ninety-four percent of the world’s scientists work in industrialized countries; the remaining six percent carry out their research in the developing world. In spite of the fact that developing countries represent seventy-seven percent of the world’s population, they contribute only fifteen percent of all modern scientific and technological production. Industrialized countries represent twenty-three percent of the world’s population but they control generation, transfer, and commercialization of modern science and technology.


In 1991, Leah A. Lieverow and Kathleen Carley described the three stages of the science communication cycle this way: “Today, in a work environment filled with computers, telephones, fax machines and other communication equipment, scientists can engage in a new way of conducting their research: Telescience”. 6 Communication processes and structures typical of scientists’ activity are summarized in a three-stage communication cycle: conceptualization, documentation and popularization. Until the past decade, the pace at which these processes took place was relatively slow compared to the potential and constantly accelerating velocity at which they can now be carried out thanks to the latest developments of telescience and cyberscience.


One of the problems facing developing countries is creation and consolidation of an autonomous scientific community able to produce the science these countries need. At the same time, they must to be able to absorb and incorporate universal scientific knowledge which has been produced everywhere into their own culture. For public understanding of science in developing countries “it is more important for many people to know what we already know, than for many scientists to know what we still do not know”. 7

For researchers with experience in conducting research in both developed and developing countries, the difference regarding scientific information and communication resources in the two contexts is very clear. 8 If we realize that small scientific communities in developing countries almost always have no, or insufficient, access to the flow of scientific communication, it is easy to discover one of the reasons for their marginal role in production of scientific knowledge.


There is presently a worldwide consensus that a country’s scientific development depends, to a large extent, on activities carried out by scientists within the country. A vast majority of scientists in developed countries have permanent access to telescience technology. In contrast, in developing countries, university professors and researchers must do all their work on their own, with very little or no contact at all, even with their peers in their own countries, much less with colleagues in the developed world. Very few have computers, fax machines, or electronic mail. Latin American universities have extremely deficient library collections, which are administered without the benefit of systematization by people with very little or no training in library science. Faculty professors and researchers cannot interact successfully with university librarians. Universities have no funds available to invest in communication and information technology. In most cases scientists in developing countries live in what are known as uninformed, uncommunicated societies. If we want to democratize science production, dissemination and popularization, we need to produce knowledge and improve the knowledge and discourse about communication among scientists in peripheral science countries.

Among many other definitions, science communication has been defined as “a social system based on social institutions, governed by social norms, and best measured through the behavior and the culture of individuals”. 9 Extending this definition, I want to add that science communication is the collective memory of all countries and all scientific disciplines of all times. It means having access to those national and international memories. Scientific communication is both the technology of printing presses, as well as new telescience technology. The field of communication is multicultural and multidisciplinary. There is no inherent limit to what can be included in the study of science communication. As in any other social science, communication takes all society as its domain.


Communication systems have been defined in abstract mathematical terms. 10 However, that abstract model must be applied to a particular and concrete situation and to a concrete community within society. Models, descriptions and theories produced in one context need contextualization and translation when they are to be used in another.


From the historical perspective of communication, science may be considered a language. Robert Logan sees science as the fourth language.11 According to him, the first language was speech. The first language evolved into a second one, written language. Later mathematics, a third language, was worked out. Before mathematics, science, the fourth language unfolded and finally, computing, the fifth language, appeared. According to Logan, all five human languages have two things in common: a communication and an information element. Each one of these five languages -speech, writing, mathematics, science and computing- have their own semantics and syntax. In my opinion, a great deal more elaboration of the social elements is required in Logan’s description of the semantics and syntax of the language of science.12

I ask myself what Logan’s evolutionary hypothesis, Darwin’s evolution and natural selection, James Lovelok’s Gaia hypothesis, Fukuyama’s irreversible trajectory that propels the progress of humanity and Kuhn’s idea that science progress from something, but not toward anything, have in common? Robert Logan answered my question saying: “I believe that it has something to do with the way in which we created order out of the chaos of perceptions which we first encounter at the beginning of life. I am presently working on a paper in which I posit that just as Prigogine posited the emergence of order out of chaos, language in the form of speech emerges from our perceptions. I will share this paper when it is a bit more formulated in my own mind. As to the connection with the other theories of evolution, I believe there is a common thread. New structures arise to meet new challenges. Change is always occurring. Nothing remains static” 13


In the epilogue of his book, Logan says: “This notion ...(language evolution)...gives rise naturally to the question of whether language will continue to evolve and if it does, what form a sixth language will take. There is no question in my mind that language will continue to develop and evolve but as to the nature of the sixth language I must confess I can not answer that question”. Steve Fuller, I believe, has an answer to this. In a e-mail message to STS list, he said: “I have no problem with the idea of progress, as long as we make clear the following: (a) What is the standard of progress, the relevant metrics, goals, etc.? (b) Who is being held accountable to such a standard? (c) Is it a standard to which those people would want to be held accountable?” 14


As far as linguistics is concerned, we still do not know how or when the chain of language evolution began. We do not know what the nature and initial characteristics of this evolutionary chain of human languages were, nor can we clearly envison the end product. Jean Francois Lyotard recently discussed this issue in Bogotá, affirming that Deleuze had no specific interest in any given end. Are the beginning and the end futile opposites? 15


In any case, we do know fairly well, both theoretically and empirically, that scientific knowledge is produced, disseminated and incorporated in popular cultures by means of communication acts and processes that take place between science and its public. Scientific activity can be viewed as a communication cycle with three progressive stages: conceptualization, documentation, and popularization. Today, telecommunication technologies have, for the first time in science history, the potential to change communication structures and processes typical of conventional science. Telescience may increase both the size and the intimacy of interpersonal interaction groups among scientists. But for economical and cultural reasons, as we will see later in this presentation, developing countries have only taken slow first steps in a long journey toward modernization..


We accept that scientific knowledge has been reconfigured throughout history through communication acts and processes. Let us define science as one language in a evolutionary chain of languages whose beginning we have traced back to Babylon but whose end we need to imagine both from natural and social sciences perspectives. Then we must think about the implications of this historical communication approach to science.



3. THE ROLE OF WORDS IN SCIENCE..



As in any social science, in science communication a tension exists between qualitative theorizing and quantitative methods. The culture of words, the cultural and behavioral dimension of science communication and relevant disciplines are at one end at the spectrum and the metrics of words, scientometric methods and indicators are at the other end.

The first generation of scientometric studies, according to Derek J. Price, appeared in 1939 with pioneer studies by John Desmond Bernal, The Social Function of Science. 16. The second generation emerged in 1960 when the first bibliometric study by Eugene Garfield, Citation Index: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and the Humanities, appeared. The third generation appeared in 1970, when the bibliometric focus became independent and science indicators were oriented toward management of science and technology resources.

In his 1995 book, The Challenge of Scientomtrics, Loet Leydesdoff argues that a multi-dimensional scheme can be used in study of sciences as a multidimensional problem. In his scheme, the three units of analysis are scientists, cognition and texts. Along the three dimensions in the scheme, sociology of science, information science and scientometrics are the relevant disciplines which may be used to describe the world of science. Leydesdof adds that a language enabling us to capture core processes in scientific development is needed, and that in scientometrics information is the fundamental concept. Infometrics, not scientometrics, might be a better term for the quantitative dimension of science communication. 17


As far as I know, scientometric studies appeared in Latin America in February, 1987, in Costa Rica in the Derek J de Solla Price International Seminar on the Dynamics of Scientific Disciplines on the Periphery. Later publications demostrate conceptual advances in this field in peripheral countries. 18 In November 1994, in Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, in Buenos Aires, the first Iberoamerican Workshop on Science and Technology Indicators took place. The second took place in Cartagena, Colombia, April 24-26, 1996. The first draft of the Cartagena workshop documents were delivered in Colombia by electronic mail.


Initial scientific indicators were numbers of scientific publications, researchers, equipment and patents. A decade later, a new range of indicators have been developed, such as innovation indicators, international cooperation indicators, environmental indicators, sustainability indicators, human health indicators, social indicators. The conceptual development of scientific indicators in peripheral science countries, for a variety of reasons, does not necessarily mean that they are actually used in the management of science. In peripheral science countries there is a considerable distance between theory and practice in science policy.


Within the framework of a single research project in science communication, the quantitative-qualitative dimension normally appears. 19 In fact, science communication considerations (formal or informal aspects) are present in most science and technology policy discussions. The case of scientific publishing is particularly illustrative.


Publish or perish has universally synthesized the crucial role of communication in science. The clear danger of applying this slogan in science policy in developed as well as developing countries is now clear. Because it is important to clearly understand the role of all forms of science communications, (oral and written, formal and informal, public or private, institutional and social, national and international), I will quote three relevant authors and their opinions on scientific publishing.

Case One. Steve Fuller. In the Inaugural Lecture at Durham University, 30 November, 1995, after listing and analyzing six traditional categories of religious thought: mystery, soteriology, theodicy, sacrifice, holiness and magic causation, Fuller said: “If science policy has become this repository of superstition, then first a Reformation of the aims of science is needed before secularization can fully succeed. We could start by realizing that the following four traditional reasons for supporting science are not compatible with each other, either in terms of optimal strategy or preferred outcomes: Many highly-cited publications, personally rewarding careers, economic growth, improved human welfare”.


Case Two. Rigas Arvanitis. In 1987, in Costa Rica, in the Derek De Solla Price International Seminar on the Dynamics of Scientific Disciplines in Peripheral Countries, Arvanitis recommended that the audience, mainly researchers in developing countries, Write inside and talk outside. This is indeed wise advice for peripheral science countries. In Colombia, for instance, Professor Carlo Federichi taught several generations of mathematics students in public and private universities with draft copies of his book, Aritmetica de los Cardinales Relatores. The book was not published until 1993.


Case Three. John Maddox. On July 9, 1995 the former director of NATURE, in a conference in Barcelona, discussing recovery of a code of behavior in science research, said: Publishing is essential. But at the end of the conference he also added, “We have not reflected enough on the mechanisms to lower the pressure for publishing and for being the first, especially in the United States where they are the strongest and where the tone is given for the rest of science. Until this is not done, good behavior in science will continue to be under threat”. 20


In the case of science communication in Colombia, as we will see in sections 5 and 6, pedagogical discourse, which has been an important element in the process of scientific communication modernization, remains unpublished. Clearly, in addition to keeping the quantitative-qualitative dimension of science communication in mind, contextualization and translation are basic to scientific policy for developing countries.



4. CONTEXTUALITY IN SCIENCE COMMUNICATION.



Perhaps it is necessary to elaborate the concept of peripheral science before moving ahead with this discussion. The term itself is highly problematic. It was used in the fifties by Gunnar Myrdal in his book Economic Theory in Under-Developed Regions. Myrdal tackles the issue of industrialized countries’ scientific development at the expense of developing countries in the context of the center-periphery dichotomy. Diffusion of new technologies and scientific products in peripheral countries creates attraction toward the center, mobilizing products and human resources. Since then, there have been a variety of approaches to today’s study of peripheral science, beginning with George Barsalla’s dependency approach, Derek Price’s quantitative approach and Sal Restivo’s approach of the sociology of objectivity.


Peripheral science countries are everywhere: in Europe, in Latin America, in Africa, in Asia. There are peripheral scientific disciplines in central countries and central research groups in peripheral countries.

While writing this paper I discussed the term by e-mail with Marilia Coutinho at the Universityof Sao Paulo in Brazil and Ron Eglash at Ohio State University. Coutinho posits that the concept of peripheral science is derived from an interpretation of political and economic international relationships. However, there are problems in applying this to the geopolitics of scientific development. What actually matters is that the relationship between the top position and the lower ones, is one of marginality in construction of science. There are “centers” and “peripheries” all over the world; when we describe scientific success in peripheral countries, we describe how they managed to become central to the process of scientific knowledge construction in a given specialty. 21


Ron Eglash explains that the relationship between the center and the margin is always complex in any context. For example, when we refer to marginal communities in the center, the terms “ the outsider-within” (Donna Haraway’s use of Patricia Hill Collins’ term) or the “non-elite elite” (Jen Croissant) are someimes used. 22


I recognize that the term peripheral science is problematic but I use it because the other term, marginal has the same problems, in my opinion.


Using the criteria of the purposes of science, M. J. Moravcsik presented a different overall approach to peripheral science development. 23 He said that the important questions for scientific and technological development of peripheral science countries are: How much knowledge and what knowledge can we produce to fulfill our national needs? What are our researchers doing? What does our research focus upon? Moravcsik’s approach is broadly accepted today.


The comparison between central and peripheral science raises a variety of theoretical and practical problems such as conceptual, operational, metrical and evaluation equivalence. But as I already mentioned before, ninety-four percent of the world´s scientists work in industrialized countries. The remaining six percent carry out their research in the developing world in isolated conditions with poor communications. In spite of the fact that developing countries represent seventy-seven percent of the world’s population, peripheral science countries contribute only fifty percent of all modern scientific and technological production. Developed countries, with twenty-three percent of the world’s population, lead the marketing systems, control technology generation, transference and commercialization and foment scientific innovation. Only one percent of the world’s scientists are Latin American and of them, only one percent are Colombian.


This kind of analysis could very well support the Machinean concept that central science is good science and peripheral science is bad science. It might also give the impression that ideal science development should follow the central model. I wish to make it clear that this is not my position. But neither do I believe that to consider ourselves as part of the periphery implies that we must resign ourselves to marginality.


There are clear limitations in peripheral countries which obstruct successfully development of scientific institutions and human resources. There has also been lack of political will to invest in science and technology. The Colombian case is a clear example of these problems, as we will see in the following section.







5. FIRST STEPS ON A LONG JOURNEY.



In the last two decades, Colombia has been modernizing science communication. In discourse analysis, many dichotomies appear: focalized centered and non-focalized discourse; official/political and general public discourse; technological and social discourse. Diverse social agents interact in a scenario in which power, as in all scenarios in which scientific knowledge is produced, has played a significant role. Which types of discourse have attained legitimacy? How does discourse obtain legitimacy? What ethics have been present in this process? Let us see:


Written and focal discourse on the subject started in 1978 with the study Communication and Scientific Community in Colombia. 24 I was able to get a copy of this unpublished document when the IDRC offices in Bogota were moved to Montevido, Uruguay. The basic hypothesis of the study was that communication among scientists is the essential element conditioning a scientific community’s existence. The study was to be a survey of 225 Colombian researchers. Finally, only 109 were surveyed. The study proposal was to construct a model for informal communication among them. The first question posed to the group was: What is a scientist in Colombia? How many are there in the country? Then the group was classified into two categories: type A and type B researchers. Type A were similar to international scientists. Type B did research in education and teaching but had no international visibility. The same year in Mexico, Joseph Hodara used another typology and classified Mexican researchers in the good, the bad, and the ugly categories. 25


The non-focalized but relevant discourse has been present. In 1982, another study described the behavior of Colombian researchers regarding scientific information. 26 Difficulties with university library collections, availability of communications technology and the language problem appeared. These problems are still present and as strong as ever in most Colombian universities. Later, in 1984, another study identified the basic problems faced by Colombian researchers regarding scientific information, with emphasis on information technology. 27 These two studies were financed by Colciencias and ICFES and are part of the official discourse which took place during more than two decades, seeking to develop the National Information System, SNI. The National Information System was a strategy that I believe failed. Unfortunately, I do not know of any evaluation studies on the subject. Most science and technology policies and strategies in Colombia’s past have not been evaluated. In the past two decades, scientific and technological institutions created for research in crucial areas such as education, technology transfer and agriculture have been closed one by one. 28 Clearly, Colombia’s lack of scientific information and communication technology in the academic world is even more acute today. Since Colombia is currently facing a financial crisis in thirty public universities, scientific information problems are bound to grow. 29


I began the Voc Project in 1984 at CIFI, the Research Center at the College of Engineering at University de los Andes. Financial problems at Los Andes at that time partially explain why the project was never carried out. But there were many vicious circles in the situation. One was the problem of where to locate the project. What department would be an adequate place to develop a project that is by nature multidisciplinary? An additional basic difficult question was: It is sensible to make such an effort for only one university in Colombia? Our answer to this question was a clear NO and here the old problem of rival universities, which has never been studied but clearly exists in Colombia, appeared. It was also clear that only joint efforts from more than one university would make the project possible. Inter-university work is difficult everywhere and is even more so in developing countries.


The Voc Project’s basic idea was to test a communication system using video tapes. Colciencias financed the first step of project design. When it became clear that Universidad de los Andes’ financial problems at the beginning of the eighties had made it impossible to continue the project there, a group of faculty at los Andes invited professors from other universities to create Fundación Voc in 1986. In a merit contest organized by Colciencias and the National University, Voc received -along with forty other institutions- offices on the National University campus. Then a proposal for an Information Center on Scientific Communication, which we had presented to the International Development Research Center, IDRC, while we still were at Universidad de los Andes, was approved. Here more vicious circles appeared. IDRC, was not sure about Fundación Voc’s ability to efficiently administer the grant and asked it to negotiate project administration with a more experienced institution. We contacted the National University, the Asociación Colombiana para el Desarrollo de la Educación No-Formal, APEC, and the Asociación Colombiana para el Avance de la Ciencia, ACAC. The National University wanted the grant and the project, but not the research team. APEC wanted to remove the Voc Project from the universities. It clearly did not make any sense to do that. ACAC kindly refused both the project and the research team. When we finally contacted Instituto Caro y Cuervo, it was clear that something was wrong. Fundación Voc could not receive the IDRC grant. 30


As mentioned before, Fundación Voc was created by faculty members of public and private Colombian universities in 1986. Since then, we have been carrying out pedagogical discourse on science communication in Colombia. By law, Fundación Voc is based on the following values: It seeks to improve the informative quality of scientific information in order to participate in serious and informed debate on the subject of communication among scientists. It believes that science communication is a mechanism for faculty development in public and private Colombian institutions and since the researchers are all university professors, we believe that it is our duty to research the subject. 31 The Foundation believes in horizontal democratic communication among scientists. Democratic access to scientific communication was defined as effective exercise of the right to send messages; participation as effective exercise of the right to receive messages, and dialogue as the effective exercise of the right to both receive and send messages. 32 These values have guided our work; the quality of that work is for others to evaluate. But our pedagogical discourse has been carried out mainly in Colciencias and in Colombian public and private institutions for more than ten years. Fundación Voc was a member of the Science and Technology Studies group that met weekly in Colciencias for more than a year. Many conferences on different aspects of science communications were delivered in Colciencias. We have also participated in national and international conferences such as this one. 33



Voc’s project problems would probably be trivial today. But they were formidable problems in 1980. What, then, are the future challenges for science and technology? Should we merely wait for future innovations that will make it easier to solve our current problems, or should we try to solve our current problems with the resources at hand? This is clearly a vital problem in the case of fundamental science reasearch areas such as biodiversity and environmental studies, not only for developing countries, but for the entire world, as we will see later in this presentation


Scientific journalism is yet another type of discourse that has played a significant role in science communication modernization in Colombia. But I have not studied it enough. It is common to find articles in Colombian newspapers written by academicians and public and private university professors. Universities, such as Universidad del Valle, Javeriana, Tadeo Lozano and Universidad de la Sabana in Bogota, are leaders in social communication.


Technological discourse in science communication was initiated at Universidad de los Andes in 1987. 34 The trigger mechanism was a request made by an anthropology professor who just returned from the United States to the University administrators and engineers at the Computer Center: “Why we do not have BITNET?” “It all started with a scientist that do not wanted to isolate himself from his peers. Universidad de los Andes led the project. Technicians pushed the idea, even against some academicians who looked upon it as an exotic idea”. 35 Since then, some Colombian public and private universities, as well as other institutions, have made amazing progress toward modernizing science communication.


General public discourse in science communication began in 1990. 36 An e-mail guide to Latin American lists, edited by Pedro Saizar, a Peruvian student at Ohio State University, reached Fernando Rivera, a Colombian physicist studying in Switzerland. Rivera said, “When I saw that Colombia was not on that list it occurred to me to send an open message to all nets with a sort of scream, searching for my fellows. To my surprise, I started to receive dozens of messages expressing the same need. More than fifty Colombians created the Colombianos en en Exterior list, Colext. Why did the idea of creating Colext occurr to me? It was initially a feeling of loneliness created by distance”. Science communication is, more than any other consideration, a deeply felt need. That is the reason why researchers write in the first place. But some researchers tend to act upon that need.

There was general surprise in among all parties involved in this modernization process when in 1991, Colciencias, the official source of scientific discourse, broke onto the national scenario saying “I DID IT!” on major public television, in the main newspapers and different academic events. In acute contrast to the financial modesty of other parties to this modernization process, this bit of official discourse was disseminated though an elegant Colciencias tour around the world! The message that Colciencias disseminated was that the electronic list, Red Caldas, is the startingpoint of moder science communication in Colombia. What has actually happened is that many electronic academic lists, webs and electronic forums have appeared since then. 37 The role played by science communication in general is complex. To pretend that a country’s scientific strategy depends on the activity of any single electronic academic list, simply because it was created by the government, is impossible from the stand-point of the complex and thus far unknown dynamics of science communication.


To reduce the role played by science communication as a whole to the activity of any a single electronic mailing list, is one the most extreme cases of translation I have found.

In this case, translation means the mechanism and strategies by which any actor -in this case, the government- in a social context relates to other actors. Any agent builds a surrounding universe that is a complex and changing web of different elements that he attempts to gather and make dependent on him. I am not sure if the meaning that I attribute to “translation” here is the same meaning the term has in the French sociology of science school. This case is, I believe, similar to the notion of cognitive dissonance in psychology or simply the old and well-known relationship between power and scientific knowledge.


Official discourse in the process of science communication modernization in Colombia is the discourse of economic power, and politics. Colciencias finances projects and scientific and technological activities nationwide. When Red Caldas was created the political timing (a change in government that meant a change in Colciencias’ administration) was clear; it marked the end of a four-year period in Colciencias’ administration.


In any case, Fundación Voc’s pedagogical discourse was swept from the national scenario. In all its publications Colciencias pretended that it never existed. The Universidad de los Andes’ technological discourse was spoken of in a low voice, but never mentioned in published documents. The relationship among Colext and Red Caldas was described in the following terms: “This folkloric way of life (Colext) is a magnificent wedding of tradition and modernity in such a sophisticated and severe millieu (Red Caldas) that it defies those who think that technification has made new forms of sociability totally aseptic ”. 38 This is a clear example of bureaucratic technobabble used among researchers to dazzle others.


The attitude of Colciencias’ current administration with respect to a formal complaint about this violation of the code of ethics among Colombian scientists lodged by Fundación Voc has been silence. This is a common bureaucratic practice: no dialogue, no explanation, no responsibility for an institutional violation, not only of the code of ethics in scientific research but also of Colombian constitutional rights. 39. In some developing countries, governmental institutions do not feel accountable, nor is there a civil community strong enough to demand that accountability. Science and technology policy in developing countries needs to be informed by many other areas of scientific knowledge and discourse, such as science and law, gender perception of science and social epistemology.


At this point, Fundación Voc has changed the focus of its analysis, and is presently concentrating on communication processes within Colombia. That is why Fundación Voc is currently working in a project Explicit Science and Technology Policy and its Actual Use. The Colombian Case. We have found that there is a big separation between the two What is important to realize here is that Colciencias acts as if official discourse has an epistemological privilege over Fundación Voc’s pedagogical discourse, general public discourse, technological discourse or journalistic discourse which, together, are accountable for science communication modernization in Colombia. This local pathology in communication among scientists within one country illustrates the universal role of power in scientific knowledge production.


The point that I want make clear in this description is the role that economic and political power always plays in the context in which scientific knowledge is produced, disseminated and popularized. At a national level, it is trivial to clarify which researcher or what discourse has made any given contribution. The game is authorship and perhaps some recognition. But we will see in next section that in an international scenario, as in the case of biodiversity and environmental studies, the game is national identity and natural resources.




6. THE POWER GAME: FROM NATURAL HISTORY TO BIODIVERSITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES. SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT AND NATIONAL IDENTITY.




Understanding the role played by economic political power in science communication is crucial at the national and social level. A group of Colombian researchers helped me to quickly review Colombia’s social history of science, starting with the concept that science is a language and that communication and information are the basic elements of that language. 40. Needless to say, I am the only one responsible for the mistakes in my personal interpretation. This group of Colombian researchers only attempted to assist me in improving my historical vision.


If we define science as a language, (non-focal) discourse on science communication has existed in Colombia since the moment that science began its development here. Making a clear oversimplification, I have divide the social history of science in three historical scenarios: The first one is the seventeenth century, from 1783-1810, when the Botannical Expedition took place. The second scenario is in the nineteenth century, from 1850 to 1859. During that period, the Chorographic Commission was underway. The third scenario is the twentieth century, and the basic issue is Amazonia. As I already mentioned, this is clearly an oversimplification. But this approach gives me a temporary basis from which to assert that Colombia’s science history is closely tied to its natural wealth, fertility and incredibly rich natural resources. I also wish to state that the history of Colombian science has been a engagement with society, rather than with science itself. 41. It also reflects the work and effort of dedicated Colombian and international scientists who have worked, and continue to do so, in isolated and uncommunicated scenarios. Let us keep in mind that in all social scenarios in which scientific knowledge is produced, disseminated and popularized, economic and political power ( institutional, local, national or international) plays a role.


In a detailed analysis of the first scenario, the seventeeth-century Botannical Expedition, Mauricio Nieto a Colombian science historian says, “Natural history, recollection and cataloging natural objects, was the expression of European political expansion and appropriation. The naturalists’ work -naming, classifying and collecting natural objects- facilitated natural and cultural domination and possession”. 42 The scenario of any event in scientific knowledge production is a power game. Identification of mines, fauna and flora in the New Granada Kingdom was inseparable from political and economic interests. Jose Celestino Mutis, a Spanish medical doctor who had lived in Colombia twenty-three years, was named Royal Botanist in 1783, and received all Spain’s official support. “Mutis managed the Botannical Expedition in a vertical manner; the pattern of relation was subordination rather than cooperation. In his will, he designated his nephew, Sinforoso Mutis, as his successor”. 45 In the Botannical Expedition, Mutis selected a few Colombian collaborators, Jorge Tadeo Lozano, Francisco Antonio Zea and Francisco José de Caldas. The observation of flora was iconographic rather than systematic, and the results were few.


In the second historical scenario, 1850-1859, the Chorographic Commission, took place. The objective was to describe the national territory, in order to reveal Colombia’s physical, moral and political conditions. In their study of the Chorographic Commission, Colombian sociologists and social science historians, Diego Becerra Ardila and Olga Restrepo, show us a scenario with a greater number of outstanding national and international scientists. Agustin Codazzi, an Italian geographer, 1793-1859, did excellent research both in Venezuela and Colombia. Interestingly enough, the most important Colombian botanist, Jose Jerónimo Triana, is not considered as part of the national scientific tradition. 43 “When we speak of science and scientists in the mid nineteenth-century Colombia, we must envision episodic activities of isolated and marginlized individuals”. 44. But clearly the Chorographic Commission indicated regional development perspectives and helped construct of a national identity.


From then on, we must skim over many significant historical events, institutions and important national and international researchers, briefly mentioning, the National University, was created by law on September 16, 1867; the Permanent Scientific Commission, (1881-1883); the National Scientific Commission, 1916; the creation of the Botannical Garden, 1955; the National Chemistry Laboratory; the National Geological Service, 1940; the Soil Laboratory, 1957; the National Geological Service, and the Mines Inventory, 1963; the National Herbarium, the Colombian Agricultural and Animal Husbandry, ICA; the Institute of Natural Non-Renewable Resources, INDERENA. In the 1930s and 1950s, an important number of scientists and university professors -mainly French, Spanish, Italian and German- arrived in Colombia. Their influence has been lasting in universities nationwide.


Originality, the central value in scientific researcg, finds its main obstacles in worship of authority, a collective tendency to curb individual visibility and the difficulty of establishing reward sytems based on productivity and performance. One inhibiting factor than strengthened this mentality is the national scientific community’s isolation from international scientificcommunities which might serve as reference points to evaluate domestic contributions”. 46


In 1967 Colciencias, the Francisco José de Caldas Colombian Fund for Scientific Research, and the National Council for the Promotion of Science and Technology were created. In the 1950s and 1960s fundamental research programs in physics and mathematics were begun in different universities. Today, there 281 institutions higher education institutions; fifty-six universities; 246 masters’ programs and seventeen Ph. D. programs in mathematics, physics, engineering, biology, philosophy, chemistry, theology, genetics, chemical engineering, and biomedical sciences. 47 There are numerous national scientific associations, and Colombian researchers working in prestigious universities and research intitutions in developed countries.


Finally, let us focus on an analysis of social science history in Colombia Today. National social problems are large, and growing. One of them is the poverty of great majorities living in rural areas and urban ghettos, in misery and violence. Another problem is delayed achievement of social goals such as education, health care and employment. Colombia has also lost many of its domestic wars over the last forty years: the war against increasingly strong guerillas, the seemingly unsolvable drug war, the war against corruption which has reached unprecedented levels, the war against impunity and the failure of the judicial system. Any of these alone would be overwhelming for any nation. For Colombia, the conjunction of them all is profoundly dangerous for national peace, identity and autonomy.


In this convulsive social scenario, scientific activity is diverse, and many young researchers have been trained or are carrying out their advanced studies both in Colombia and abroad. There are nuceli of research in Colombian doctorate programs. However, as in the past, the national scientific community has made a special effort in the area of biodiversity and the environment in a difficult political scenario. It must be remembered that Colombia has 7% of the Earth’s surface and 10% of its total number of species of fauna and flora.


In the area of natural resources, the answer may be in ambitious projects such as the Bio-Pacific Plan, which began its design stage in 1990, with a US$ 9 million grant from the Global Environment Facility, GEF. The Bio-Pacific Plan began in March, 1993. The first task - and perhaps the most formidable - was to win over communities that have a deep distrust of centralize government programs and foreign cooperation. “There’s a long history of failed projects in the Pacific,” says Fernando Casas, the Colombian coordinator of Bio-Pacific. “It’s. slow and difficult, and we have to give people support so they can formulate and reach their own targets. Biodiversity is absolutely critical to their survival, and it can’t be conserved without their participation.” 48. Another important national project is the Alternative Development Plan, PLANTE, which seeks to curb cocaine cultivation. The plan has faced enormous difficulties. 49.


In 1993, the Ministry of the Environment, and the National Environment System, SINA, were created. SINA has four institutions: the Humboldt Institute, the Institute for Enviromental and Meteorological Studies, IDEAM; the Institute for Amazon Studies, SINCHI; the Institute for Coastal and Pacific Marine Resouces, INVEMAR. The Humboldt Institute is a private, non-profit entity associated with the Ministry of the Environment. The Humboldt Institute is made up of ten major universities, Colciencias and several NGOs; it seeks to undertsand the nation’s biological diversity, and forment its conservation and sustained use. Its director has a Ph.D. in biology from Harvard, and describes the Institute’s activity with the following metaphor, “The biological resources are like a library, and the first thing to do is to conserve it. Then, we must find out what books it has, and then discover what they may be used for, in order to finally make use of them. If we do not keep what we have, although we might not know its real value, we will never be able to make use of it. Today, the library is on fire, and we don’t even know what we’ve lost., Therefore, an essential part of our mission is to keep this from continuing”. 50. The Humboldt Institute’s most significiant advancement in these first years has been the definition of legislation for environmental protection. In 1995, environment was included for the first time in national development plans.


The actors on the national scene are numerous: Native Americans and their associations, peasant associations, government employees and their projects, the military and its viewpoint, the guerilla and its pretensions, para-military organizations, politicians, journalists, the Catholic Church, academicians, universities, students. All are motivated by their own interests, some of which are recognizable and explicit, and others , imaginary. However, their game is one that affects an entire nation’s peace and identity. This situation becomes infinitely more complicated if we imagine this, Colombia’s scenario, facing a developed world “decided to know it all, do it all, have it all, be it all”. 51.


How can we find legitimate or credible discourse in such an international scenario? How can we guarantee transparent communication processes? How may dialogue take place among these diverse discourses? In a word, how can we make all these processes really democratic? For this reason, I began my presentation with two questions: How much do we know about communication among scientists? How can we improve the production, distribution and popularization of scientific knowledge for the betterment of humanity?




7. CONCLUSIONS




I have given a great deal of thought to my conclusions, and always find myself wordless. My most important conclusions are the questions I asked just a moment ago. Perhaps the fundamental point of this presentation is to ask, rather than to answer. I challenge you to help find the answers we all so desire.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS




I would like to thank the many people who have helped me in developing this text, especially by reading it and offering their ideas. In addition, I would especially like to acknowledge the assistance of Hernán Russy and Debra McKinney, without whom I could not have finished this document.




NOTES




1. While writing this presentation, the international scientific community is in the middle of a turbulent debate: the increasing unemployment of Ph. Ds in Social Studies of Science in the United States. Publication of Alan Sokal’s article, A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies, in Social Text and Lingua Franca, Stanford University’s closure/downgrading of its STS undergraduate program. In a message to the STS list, May 9/96, Subject: Sokal, Stanford, Superstition, etc.., Mary Lee described the situation this way: “It's rough times all over--for 'natural' and 'un-natural' scientists as well as humanists--and a lot of academic infighting here seems to have been predicated by the present serve bout (sic) of resource scarcity”.


2. Reading Steve Fuller’s article, Does Science Put an End to History, or History to Science? was basic for my reflection on this question. But it is important to add that reading this article was possible for me because found it when I visited the home page of Technoscience, the newsletter of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), at Durham University. When I looked for a Steve Fuller title in Colombian academic libraries, I could not find even one. One of the worst problems for researchers in peripheral science countries is scientific information and literature.


3. From the standpoint of economics, science should be considered a public good and be protected from market forces, argues Michel Callon in, Is Science a Public Good? Fifth Mullins Lecture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 23 March 1993. Science, Technology, and Human Values. Journal of the Society for Social Studies of Science. Vol. 19 / Number 4 Autumn 1994. pp 395-424.


4. Derek J. de Solla Price. 1967. Science Since Babylon. Yale University Press. New Haven and London.


5. In exploring the science communication historical perspective, I have intentionally selected Derek J. de Solla Price’s focus not only because Price introduced the invisible colleges metaphor in the twentieth century, but also because in February, 1987, the Seminario Internacional “Derek de Solla Price” de las disciplinas científicas en la periferia took place in San Jose de Costa Rica. That was the starting point of study of the scientific indicators in Latin America.


6. Leah A. Lievrouw and Kathleen Carley. 1990. Changing Patterns of Communication Among Scientists In An Era of Telescience. Technology in Society. Vol 12, pp 457-477.


7. Ramon Folch. Quote from a conference that was summed up by Marta Espar in, Comunicación Científica, un Cajon de Sastre. Congress, Science Communications and Culture. Barcelona 9 al 13 de Julio 1995. QUARK. Ciencia, Medicina, Comunicación y Cultura. Octubre- Diciembre de 1995, p. 114.


8. For a diagnostic study of the Colombian case, see, Ligia Parra-Esteban, Enero de 1991, Ciencia Periférica y Comunicación Entre Científicos. Colombia Ciencia y Tecnología. Vol. 9. No. 1 Enero/Marzo de 1991. Also Octubre 1991. Comunicación y Desarrollo Científico en Colombia. Fundación Voc. Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 51. Elsa Martínez Cáceres. 1982. Comportamiento de los Investigadores Colombianos en Relación con la Informacion. ICFES. Edgar Reveiz, Eduardo Aldana y V. Slameca.1984. La Información en el Desarrollo Colombiano. Colciencias.


9. W. D. Garvey 1965. Scientific Communication: Dissemination System in Psychology and Theoretical Framework for Planning Innovations. American Psychologist. 20: 157-164 Cited by Bertita E. Compton. 1973. Scientific Communication. In Handbook of Communication. Edited by Ithiel de Solla Pool and Frederick W. Frey. Center for International Studies. MIT. Wilburg Schramm,Nathan Maccoby and Edwing B. Parker. Stanford University. Rand McNally College Publishing Company Chicago. pp 3-26.


10. See: Ithiel de Sola Pool. 1973. Communication Systems. In Handbook of Communication. Edited by Ithiel de Solla Pool and Frederick W. Frey. Center for International Studies. MIT. Wilburg Schramm,Nathan Maccoby and Edwing B. Parker. Stanford University. Rand McNally College Publishing Company Chicago. pp 3-26.


11. Robert Logan. The Fifth Language: Learning a Living in a Computer Age. October 1995. Stoddart Publishing. Toronto. Canada.


12. See, Robert Logan. Op. cit. Chapter 3.


13. In an e-mail message on May 21, Robert Logan sent me this answer to a previous question that I had posed. See also Steve Fuller, Does Science Put an End to History, or History to Science?



14. Steve Fuller, message to the list STS, Subject: More bracketing.


15. Jean Francois Lyotard, La Desaparición de Deleuze. Era la Biblioteca de Babel. Lecturas Dominicales de EL TIEMPO, Marzo 10 de 1996.


16. John Desmond Bernal. 1939. The Social Function of Science. George Rutledge and Sons. London.


17. Loet Leydesdorff. 1995. The Challenge of Scientometrics. The Development, Measurement, and Self-Organization of Scientific Communication. DSWO Press, Leiden University, The Netherlands.


18. Rigas Arvanitis and Jaques Gaillard. 1990. Les Indicateurs de Science pour les Pays en Development. ORSTOM / CNRS Paris Unesco.


19. A good example of this is Rigas Arvanitis and Yvon Chatelin, 1987, National Scientific Strategies in Tropical Soil Science. February, 1987 Costa Rica. The Derek J de Solla Price International Seminar, on the Dynamics of Scientific Disciplines on the Periphery. In this work the mixture of informetric and qualitative communication aspects is clearly visible.


20. John Maddox. 1995. Recuperar un Código de Conducta en la Investigación. QUARK. Ciencia, Medicína, Comunicación y Cultura. Octubre - Diciembre 1995. Número 1. pp 118-121


21. Marilia Coutinho, Message May 21, Subject: Question 2.


22. Ron Eglash, e-mail message.


23. M. J. Moravcsik 1976.


24. Horacio H. Godoy, Luis Tejada and Susana Becerra, La Comunicación y la Comunidad Científica en Colombia, 1978, Fundación America Latina 2000.


25. Joseph Hodara. El Intelectual Científico Mejicano. Una Tipología. INTERCIENCIA. Enero/ Febrero 1978. Vol. 3 No.1, pp 20-22.


26. Elsa Martínez Cáceres, 1982. ICFES. El Comportamiento de los Investigadores Colombianos en Relación con la Información. Seminario Nacional de Bibliotecas de Instituciones de Educación Superior.


27. Edgar Reveiz, Eduardo Aldana, V Slameca. 1984. La Información para el Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico. Colciencias.


28. The first institution was closed in 1975, the Instituto Colombiano de Pedagogía, ICOLPE. The second one, Instituto de Investigaciones Tecnológicas, IIT. The third one, the Instituto Agropecuario, ICA.


29. Angela Constanza Jeres. La Universidad Pública en Quiebra. EL TIEMPO. May 27, 1996, page 2A. See also, Comisión estudirá Crisis en Educación Superior. EL TIEMPO. Mayo 28 de 1996. page 6A.


30. All the work we did at Harvard, MIT, and the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, in the States and Universidad de los Andes and Universidad Tadeo Lozano in Colombia is written or taped.


31. See, Ligia Parra, Desarrollo Profesoral. Organización de Estados Americanos,OEA. Junio de 1982. Semi­nario Universidad Católica Ma­dre y Maes­­­­­­tra, en San­tiago de los Caballeros de la República Do­minicana. Abril de 1990. Ensayo, Desarrollo Profesoral , pre­­­­sen­tado en el Seminario Taller sobre Do­cencia e Inves­tigación en la Universidad de Pamplona en Abril 20 de 1990. Ligia Parra Diciembre de 1981. VIDEO: Desarrollo Profesoral. Entre­vista en Ingles con el profesor Bernard Kaplan. Univer­sidad de Har­vard. In­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­glés. 30. Co­lor


32. We took these basic definitions from the Luis Ramiro Beltran, a Bolivian researcher in social communication. See, Adios a Aristoteles: Comunicación Horizontal. UNESCO. Comisión Internacional Para el Estudio de los Problemas de la Comunicación. 1987.


33. There are project reports, working documents, videos, tapes, written conferences of these 16 years.


34. It is easy to document this technological innovation process at Universidad de los Andes. Working documents exist.


35. E-mail message from Fernando Salcedo, Computer Center Director. March 27, 1996.


36. See, Fernando Rivera, “El Parto de los Bits”. This is the story of the Colombianos en el Exterior list, Colext. It was sent in the March 27 message, Subject: r-caldas LAST.


37. The first academic Colombian list was Colext in 1990 . Red Caldas appeared one year latter. At present, Finlay-L and Soc.Culture.Colombia are currently active, and every day new lists and www on the subject of Colombia appear.


38. See, Jean Baptiste Meyer, Red Caldas, Signo de Nuestro Tiempo. Working Document. Page 6. The copy I have is a working document that was delivered in a Colciencias´s event for the creation of Red Caldas.


39. In the study, Constitución y Ciencia en Colombia, Fundamentos Constitucionales y Legales de la Actividad Científica., Fundación Voc. November 14 1995 Legal analysis shows a violation of fundamental Colombian civil rights.


40. Starting March 17, 1996 I interviewed the following Colombian Professors: Santiago Díaz, Botanist and Science Historian; Carlos Vasco, Ph D. Master in Physics and Ph.D in Mathematics, Professor Emeritus Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Olga Restrepo, Master in History and Sociologist, History Professor Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Mauricio Nieto Ph. D. in History of Science, History Professor Universida de los Andes; Enrique Forero, Ph. D. Botanist and Biologists, Dean of Science at Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Needless to say, I am the only responsable for all the mistakes in this text, they only helped me to improve it.


41. For a discussion of the last point See: Ligia Parra Esteban, Universidad de los Andes and Noel McGinn, Harvard University. 1981. The second version was edited in Colombia INRAVISON. Videotape, Academic Cultures One. Also Ligia Parra Esteban and Luis Enrique Orozco, 1984 Universidad de los Andes. Academic Cultures Two. Also Ligia Parra and Manuel Hernández, 1985. Evaluation of the Videos Academic Cultures One and Two.


42. See, Mauricio Nieto, 1995. Políticas Imperiales en la Ilustración Española: HISTORIA NATURAL Y LA APROPIACION DEL NUEVO REINO. Historia Crítica. Julio-Diciembre de 1995. pp 39-52.


43. See, Santiago Díaz-Piedrahita, y Alicia Lourteig, 1989. Génesis de una Flora. Bogotá. Académia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Colección Enrique Pérez Arbélaez., No. 2.


44. See, Diego Becerra Ardila and Olga Restrepo Las Ciencias en Colombia: 1783-1990. Una Perspectiva Historica-Sociológica. Revista Colombiana de Educación. Bogotá (26): 31-95, 1993. Page 34. For a comparative analysis between the Botannical Expedition and the Chorographic Commission see, La Expedición Botanica y la Comisión Corografica. Una Mirada Comparativa. Senderos. Bogotá. Publicación Semestral de la Biblioteca Nacional de Colombia.


45. See, Diego Becerra Ardila and Olga Restrepo. Op. cit. 44.


46. See, Diego Becerra Ardila and Olga Restrepo. Op. cit. 44. Page 87.


47. Guía de Educación Superior. Servício Nacional de Pruebas. ICFES. EL ESPECTADOR. Junio 1996.


48. See, Sarita Kendal. CONSERVATION BY CONSENSUS

In CHOICES: The Human Development Magazine, Volume 3, Number 4, 1994, pages

8-13. From: Colombia Support Network <[email protected]> Fri, 12 Apr 1996 Subject: PLAN PACIFICO BY SARITA KENDAL To: [email protected]. Newsgroups: soc.culture.colombia


49. See, Winston González del Rio. Arendaban fincas para desviar los dineros del Plante. EL TIEMPO. Page 11A April 4. 1996.


50. See, Humboldt estudiará biodiversidad. Es un instituto que será la mano derecha de Minambiente. EL TIEMPO. February 24, 1996. Page 3A


51. See, Jean Francois Lyotard. Posmodernidad. Aviso de Diluvio. Translated from Fench into Spanish by Rodrigo Alvarez. Quinta Catedra Internacional de Arte Luis Angel Arango. Octubre 2-5 de 1995. Bogotá.

19



ISTS 2002M01 MISSION AND SCIENCE OF MUNIN
NEBRASKA’S HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER OFFICE OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS
PGCE PRIMARY SCIENCE SPECIALIST PATHWAY 20182019


Tags: communication in, qualitative communication, science, shaping, knowledge, communication