module 2.pdf

Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES Name of College...

Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES Name of College Module 2 LANDSCAPES OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION Name of Student: __________________ Date: Week 3-4 Course Code: COMELECT4 Name of Faculty: Leemar C. Serrano Course Title: Science and Health Communication I. OBJECTIVES After this module, you shall be able to: 1. Know and describe the early concepts of science communication; 2. Discuss the social construction of the science in the eyes of the public; 3. Discuss salient features of the dual nature of science; and 4. Explore scientific culture of developing countries. II. LESSON A. Early Concepts of Science Communication (Wikipedia) Science was not generally sponsored or exposed to the public until the nineteenth century, when it began to emerge as a popular discourse following the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Prior to this, most science was supported by private individuals and studied in closed institutions such as the Royal Society. The gradual societal transformation brought about by the development of the middle class in the nineteenth century gave birth to public science. As scientific discoveries such as the conveyor belt and the steam locomotive entered and improved people's lives in the nineteenth century, universities and other public institutions began to sponsor scientific inventions in order to boost scientific research. The quest of scientific knowledge culminated in science as a career because scientific breakthroughs were useful to society. Leading outlets for public discussion of science include scientific institutes such as the National Academy of Sciences and the British Association for the Advancement of Science." So that scientific students may know where to begin their labors," David Brewster, the founder of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, believed in regulated publishing in order to successfully disseminate their discoveries. The public's interest in science grew as science's communication reached a wider audience as a result of its professionalization and introduction to the public domain.  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur Scientific media in the 19th century. In the nineteenth century, there occurred a shift in media output. The introduction of the steam-powered printing press allowed for the production of more pages per hour, resulting in lower-cost texts. The cost of books gradually decreased, allowing the working people to afford them. Affordable and informative texts were no longer reserved for the elite, but were made available to the general public. As the nineteenth century saw a series of social reforms aimed at improving the lives of the working classes, historian Aileen Fyfe highlighted that the availability of public information was important for intellectual advancement. As a result, reform initiatives to increase the understanding of the less educated have been made. Henry Brougham's Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge aimed to develop a system for universal literacy for all classes. Weekly journals, such as the Penny Magazine, also tried to inform the general public about scientific advances in a thorough manner. The steam-powered printing press of Fredrich Koenig, 1814. As the public's interest in science grew, so did the audience for scientific texts. Some universities, such as Oxford and Cambridge, erected "extension lectures" to attract members of the public to attend lectures. In the nineteenth century, travelling lectures were prevalent in America and drew crowds of hundreds of people. These public lectures were part of the lyceum movement and displayed basic scientific experiments for both educated and unskilled audiences. The increasing popularity of public science not only educated the general public through the media, but it also improved communication among scientists. Despite the fact that scientists have been conveying their discoveries and successes through print for centuries, the popularity of publications on a range of areas has declined. In the eighteenth century, however, publishing in discipline-specific journals were critical for a successful career in the sciences. As a result, at the end of the nineteenth century, scientific journals like Nature and National Geographic had a wide readership and received significant financing, indicating that science was becoming more popular. Science communication in contemporary media. Science can be conveyed to the general public in a variety of ways. Traditional journalism, live or face-to-face events, and internet contact are the three categories, according to Karen Bultitude, a scientific communication lecturer at University College London. Traditional journalism. Traditional journalism (for example, newspapers, magazines, television, and radio) has the benefit of reaching a large audience; in the past, this was the primary source of science knowledge for the majority of people. Because it is generated by skilled journalists, traditional media is also more likely to produce high-quality (well-written or presented) content. Traditional journalism is frequently in charge of setting the agenda and influencing government policies. The typical journalistic style of communication is one-way, so there can be no public dialogue, and science stories are frequently narrowed in scope for a popular  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur readership that may not be able to appreciate the wider picture from a scientific standpoint. However, new research on the function of newspapers and television channels in forming "scientific public spheres" that allow a diverse range of actors to participate in public debates is now accessible. Another problem of traditional journalism is that once a science issue is picked up by the mainstream media, the scientist(s) involved lose direct control over how their work is disseminated, potentially leading to misinterpretation or misrepresentation. In some cases, the interaction between journalists and scientists has been strained, according to research in this field. On the one hand, scientists have expressed dissatisfaction with journalists' oversimplification or dramatisation of their work, while journalists find scientists difficult to work with and ill-equipped to communicate their findings to a public audience. Despite this apparent conflict, a survey of scientists from various countries found that many are satisfied with their media connections and engage frequently. However, traditional media sources, such as newspapers and television, have continuously dropped as primary sources for science information, whilst the internet has swiftly grown in importance. In 2016, 55 percent of Americans said they learned about science and technology through the internet, compared to 24 percent who said they learned from television and 4% who said they learned from newspapers. In addition, traditional media sources have drastically reduced the number of science journalists and the amount of science-related information they produce, in some cases eliminating them entirely. Live or face-to-face events. Live or in-person activities, such as public lectures in museums or universities, debates, science busking, "sci-art" exhibits, Science Cafés, and science festivals, fall under the second group. To engage in science communication, citizen science or crowd-sourced science (scientific research undertaken in whole or in part by amateur or nonprofessional scientists) can be done in person, online, or a combination of the two. According to research, members of the public seek for science information that is both amusing and useful in assisting citizens in risk regulation and S&T governance. As a result, it's critical to keep this in mind while disseminating scientific information to the general population (for example, through events combining science communication and comedy, such as Festival of the Spoken Nerd, or during scientific controversies). This technique has the advantage of being more intimate and allowing scientists to communicate with the public in a two-way dialogue. This strategy also allows scientists to better manage content. The method's disadvantages include its restricted reach, the fact that it can be resource-intensive and pricey, and the fact that it may only appeal to audiences that already have an interest in science. Online interaction. The third type is online interaction; for example, websites, blogs, wikis, and podcasts, as well as other social media, can be utilised for science  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur communication. Online scientific communication strategies have the ability to reach large audiences, allow direct engagement between scientists and the general public, and the content is always available and can be managed to some extent by the scientist. Furthermore, greater citations, better circulation of articles, and the formation of new collaborations are all benefits of online science communication. Online communication also allows for one-way and two-way communication, depending on the preferences of the audience and the author. However, there are drawbacks, such as the inability to control how content is interpreted by others and the necessity for constant monitoring and updating. Scientists should assess what science communication research has demonstrated to be the potential good and negative results when deciding whether or not to engage in online scientific communication. Online communication has sparked initiatives such as open science, which advocates for more open access to science. When communicating about science online, however, scientists should refrain from promoting or disclosing findings from their research before it has been peer-reviewed and published, as journals may refuse to accept the work after it has been shared due to the "Ingelfinger rule." Other factors to consider are how scientists will be perceived by other scientists as a result of their communication. Using concepts like the Sagan effect or the Kardashian Index, some scholars have attacked active, popular scholars. Despite these objections, many scientists are turning to internet venues to share their findings, signalling a shift in the field's standards. Social media science communication. Scientists and science communicators can use Twitter to discuss scientific topics with a wide range of audiences and perspectives. Gunther Eysenbach's studies from 2012 shed light on how Twitter not only conveys science to the public, but also influences scientific progress. In a 2014 news article titled "How to use social media for science," Alison Burt, editor in chief of Elsevier Connect, reported on a panel about social media at that year's AAAS meeting, in which panellists Maggie Koerth-Baker, Kim Cobb, and Danielle N. Lee discussed the benefits and drawbacks of scientists sharing their research on Twitter. In order to preserve professionalism online, Koerth-Baker, for example, stressed the significance of keeping public and private personas separate on social media. Karen Peterson, director of Scientific Career Development at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, was interviewed in 2014 and emphasised the necessity of scientists adopting social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to build an online presence.  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur In a 2016 paper published in PLOS One, Kimberly Collins et al. highlighted why some academics were hesitant to join Twitter. Due to a lack of knowledge of the platform and experience with how to produce meaningful posts, some academics were hesitant to use social media sites such as Twitter. Some scientists didn't understand the use of utilising Twitter as a forum for sharing their findings or didn't have the time to update their accounts. Elena Milani founded the SciHashtag Project in 2016, which is a curated list of Twitter hashtags related to science communication. According to a Pew Research Center research published in 2017, "roughly a quarter of social media users (26 percent) follow science accounts" on social media. "Science news that arrives to them through social media is both more important and comparatively more trusted by this category of users," according to the study. Other social media channels, such as Instagram and Reddit, have also been utilised by scientists to engage with the public and discuss research. Early Science Communication in the Philippines. Because a comprehensive, systematic examination of scicom's history in the Philippines has yet to be completed, it is difficult to accurately recount its early concepts in the Philippines. Although articles about Philippine scicom have lately been published in several local and international communication magazines, there is no local academic journal title that focuses completely on scicom. The richness of indigenous concepts and language in local astronomy (Ambrosio, 2010) and the design and development of the Ifugao Rice Terraces demonstrate that Filipinos had a comprehensive grasp of science and engineering during pre-colonial times (Conklin, 1980). In pre-colonial times, indigenous tribes passed down traditional knowledge of herbal treatments and agricultural practises, resulting in forms of scicom. Because some of this knowledge was written on perishable bamboo (Morrow, 2002), and other material was conveyed orally, these traditions were largely ignored and unrecorded until recently (Daoas, 1999). However, several historical sources from the Spanish colonial period suggest a more likely method of science communication. Priests of several religious orders led scientific achievements (Velasco and Baens-Arcega, 1984; Anderson, 2007). Later on, especially during the period of Governor General Jose Basco y Vargas in the 1780s, agricultural information was disseminated more widely. During his presidency, the Sociedad Economica de los Amigos del Pais [Economic Societies of Friends of the Country] was founded as a private organisation of ‘learned individuals' with the goal of improving the country's agriculture (Velasco and Baens-Arcega, 1984). This paved the path for technical and popular media to communicate  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur agricultural concepts and practises. The Sociedad is also recognised with founding a large library and a natural history museum (Anderson, 2007). The development of science-related bureaus such as the Manila Observatory in 1865, the University of Santo Tomas' Museum of Arts and Science in 1871, and advances in medical such as anti-smallpox, cholera, and leprosy campaigns highlighted the closing years of Spanish colonisation (Velasco and Baens-Arcega, 1984; Anderson, 2007). Some vernacular newspapers, such as El Ilocano (established in 1889), carried science news stories around this period. For example, in its 28 June 1889 issue, an essay discussed the genesis of the earth, the solar system, astronomy, and geography. Articles about mathematics and accurate counting were published in several issues (Montemayor, 2014). By the early twentieth century, science had advanced dramatically in the United States—many scholars were sent abroad for graduate studies on scholarships, and international grants and aid helped to promote a stronger local science culture. The Bureau of Science was founded in 1905, and it evolved into the current Department of Science and Technology (DOST) in 1987. (Velasco and Baens-Arcega, 1984). Agriculture, health, and natural resources all had their own bureaus, which later became departments. These divisions would perform their own research and development and maintain their own information and communication systems. Philippine Science Communication through out the Modern Period. During the Japanese colonization of the Philippines in the 1940s, the Philippines' scientific and communication advancements were shattered. Educational and scientific activity were effectively ceased during this time. During liberation fights, the capital of the Philippines, Manila, was reduced to rubble, effectively wiping out all past research endeavours and scientific collections (Caoili, 1987). The newly independent Philippines required enormous reconstruction work by 1946, with the 1950s proving to be a turbulent period for local scicom. Science and science education were viewed as significant drivers of social advancement, alongside massive efforts toward industrialisation, primarily due to foreign help. Thus, during the decade, significant events occurred, such as the first Philippine National Science Week in 1951 (Official Gazette of the Philippines, 1951) and the founding of the now-defunct Science Foundation of the Philippines (SFP) in 19521, a public corporation tasked with encouraging the formation of school-based science clubs and societies. In 1956, SFP is credited for launching the scientific club movement (Antiola and Jose, 1982). Scicom also existed in popular culture, such as Teodorico Santos' alien invasion film Exzur2, which was one of the first, if not the first, sci-fi films created in the Philippines, and was released in 1956. (Santos, 2008a). However, it was at this time that the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Scientific Advancement published a  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur report indicating a lack of science awareness among Filipinos (Chamarik and Goonatilake, 1994). Because research was primarily driven by technology rather than by need at the time, dissemination efforts were dispersed and limited. In the 1960s, science promotion and education became a top concern for S&T. In 1960, the first science fair was held, and in 1965, it became a national event (Dagdayan, 1978). SFP organised the inaugural science quiz contest in 1961, which evolved into a nationwide science quiz tournament in 1969. (Reyes, 1978). To teach science in schools using the vernacular, the Akademya ng Wikang Pilipino [Academy of the Filipino Language] launched a project to identify phrases for science jargon and/or translate it into Filipino, the national language. In 1967, an English–Filipino technical vocabulary dictionary was published as a result of their efforts. During the 1960s, the Ateneo de Manila University's Instructional Television Division commissioned experimental educational television shows (Rodrigo, 2006). The drive to use mass media to educate youth through ‘edutainment' initiatives eventually paved the way for the classic 1980s children's programme Batibot [Small, but Strong], which occasionally tackled science and maths subjects, and the mid- 1990s hit Sineskwela [School on Air], a TV programme intended to supplement the classroom-based elementary science education curriculum. According to reports, the show reached approximately 14 million schoolchildren across the country, with some research indicating that it increased science comprehension (Rodrigo, 2006). Later, a slew of other kid-friendly science-themed TV shows appeared. In the mid-1990s, there was also an initiative to improve science education by training science instructors through television programmes (Department of Education, 1997). Local movies starring "scientists" peaked in popularity throughout the 1970s and 1980s in terms of other popular media. Scientists in these films were almost always presented as a wicked expert, a mad intellectual, a hapless victim, a hermit prodigy, a dumb professor, a well-rounded genius, or a heroic creator, almost identical to how scientists were portrayed in other countries (Montemayor, 2013). 3 The term "development journalism" was coined in the late 1960s as a response to Third World issues such as poverty, low productivity, and social injustice. This necessitated that authors go beyond simply reporting facts to delve into the "depths of human drama." A team of writers from the Philippine News Agency and the Philippine Press Institute focused on in-depth developmental news, including population, agriculture, public health, the environment, and science and technology (Jamias, 1987). Science journalism had become a catchphrase by the 1970s. Since its inaugural campus scientific journalism activity in 1971, campus journalism has been a regular part of SFP's yearly Youth Science Camp Project (Ongoco, 1978). The National Science Club of the Philippines, Inc., and the Science Club Advisers Association of the  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur Philippines, Inc. were established in the same year (Dapul, 1978; Vergara, 1978). Two years later, the first National Science Journalism Workshop was held for professional journalists, science club mentors, and campus writers, with the theme of science writing being a "new Philippine frontier" (Bautista, n.d.). The now-defunct Depthnews Science Service was established in Manila in 1976. It produced weekly science stories and radio scripts for around 250 newspapers and 300 radio stations across Asia and the Pacific Islands (Amor et al., 1987). The contribution of UNESCO in promoting science education in the country is also noteworthy. From 15 February to 14 March 1977, the SFP held the UNESCO- funded Asian Training Course for Leaders in the Promotion of Public Understanding of Science, Technology, and Environment (PUSTE). 26 Asian leaders from ten Asian nations attended the workshop to promote and ‘institutionalise PUSTE through their out-of-school science, technology, and environmental education (OSSTEE) programme' (Science Foundation of the Philippines, 1978, Foreword). The construction of a framework for the promotion of PUSTE, as well as the founding of the Asian Coordinating Council on PUSTE, were two of the most important outcomes of the programme. Since 1988, the Annual DOST Media Awards have honoured professionals in radio, television, print, and, more recently, the cyber press. Other R&D institutions began to give their own scicom prizes as a result. The Philippine Science Journalists Association (PSciJourn) was formally established in mid-2001 as a non-profit media practitioners' organisation with the mission of "providing a devoted network of people who understand the socio-economic changing power of S&T." Its goal was to aid the government's efforts to build a well-informed population (Bautista, n.d.). Every third week of July is designated as Science Journalism Week by Proclamation No. 437, s. 2003 (Official Gazette of the Philippines, 2003). PSciJourn has been tasked with organising events for this event. In Metro Manila, the government developed science centres. The National Planetarium, which opened in 1975 and also exhibits astronomical myths and beliefs, and the Philippine Science Heritage Center, which opened in 1998 and traces the history of local science, are two examples. The Philippines' first interactive scientific centre, the Philippine Science Centrum, opened in Marikina in 1984 in response to the government's demand for private sector assistance in science promotion. Scicom was more unidirectional at this point, reflecting the belief that S&T material ought to be organised in a way that encouraged appreciation and comprehension. This would later evolve into a more proactive process in which communication played a key role in fostering knowledge sharing and public participation in an open and transparent discussion.  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur B. Social Construction of the Science The social construction of science, in its most basic form, means that there is no direct link between nature and our beliefs about nature - science's outputs are not natural. This proposition can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and social constructivism is frequently divided between strong and weak interpretations. The more powerful claim would deny the existence of a separate reality or materiality outside of our perceptions of it, or at the very least dismiss it as irrelevant because we can't access it. This viewpoint, however, is not widely held. A lesser kind of social constructivism tends to put ontological questions aside in favor of epistemological concerns, such as how we learn about the world. The environments in which knowledge is formed influence and shape what we consider to be knowledge. People draw on accessible cultural material to create knowledge, rather than inherent facts in a world outside of human action waiting to be discovered. Ian Hacking, a philosopher, has studied and criticized several applications of the concept of social construction. Hacking (1999) dissects and deconstructs the various meanings of social construction. According to Hacking, the concept is frequently misused, rendering it meaningless. ”The phrase has taken on a life of its own. If you utilize it positively, you come seem as quite radical. You announce that you are rational, reasonable, and respectable if you reject the phrase” (p. vii). Furthermore, the concept frequently includes an implicit value judgement that says that things should be created differently in the ideal world. When it came to separating the various interpretations of social construction that different authors have given it, Hacking discovered three primary types: contingency, nominalism, and external grounds for stability (Sismondo 2004). The first type of social constructivism fundamentally implies that things could have turned out differently - that the current condition of affairs was not predetermined by the nature of things. The second type of social constructivism is concerned with the politics of categories, emphazing how classifications are always human-imposed rather than inherent. The third type of social constructivism emphasizes how scientific theories' stability and effectiveness are based on factors other than evidence. While many scholars have proposed that science and scientific knowledge are socially built, Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann's famous book The Social Construction of Reality was the first to incorporate the concept of social construction into mainstream social sciences. A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge is a book about the sociology of knowledge (1966). To develop a theory of social action, the writers blend ideas from Durkheim and Weber with insights from George Herbert Mead. This theory would look into not just the diversity of knowledge and reality (what counts as knowledge in Borneo may not make sense in Bath, and vice versa), but also the ways in which realities are accepted as known in human society. How is it that a notion like gender is regarded to be "natural" and "real" in every society, but is seen  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur and expressed in very diverse ways in different cultures? Knowledge of the society in which we live is “a realization in the twofold sense of the word, in the sense of apprehending objectivated social reality and in the sense of continuously constructing this reality,” according to the author. A social reality that has been objectivated is one that is not “private” to the person who created it, but can be accessed and shared by others. As humans, we are always generating and recreating reality, and the sociologist's job is to study how reality is produced, or how information gets institutionally entrenched as real. One way to see science as socially produced is to look at evident and “external” social elements like financing arrangements and political pressures. These have an impact on how science evolves; for example, economic interests can influence which projects are undertaken, and regulatory decisions can effectively close down entire research areas. Another well-known example of "external social moulding of science" is the way research is conducted institutionally — for example, how heavy bureaucracy and strong academic boundaries make transdisciplinary science difficult to pursue. Another form of social constructivism is the claim that only scientific research that is deemed "useful or entertaining" would be explored. Female domination in society in general, and in the scientific profession in particular, has resulted in specific types of scientific knowledge, according to social theorists such as Helen Longino and Evelyn Fox Keller. Gender bias is integrated into the formulation of scientific problems and the framing of hypotheses. Because reproductive duties are firmly placed with women in our society, it is considered that the female body is to be altered, male contraception is an under-researched field. Such social norms are reflected in the methods that scientists will employ - most human drug trials are conducted on young men between the ages of 18 and 20. Thus, the generic “human” is a young male, although elderly women are more likely to use the experimental drugs. Certain social situations, such as gender, color, or class, according to theorists like Sandra Harding, will render particular epistemic viewpoints. A black woman-led and moulded science would not contain the same information as a white man-led science. What we refer to as our society's collective body of knowledge is actually the knowledge of a dominating group - in this case, men. This is because our entire perspective of knowledge is a (man) ideological construct, not merely because “female” issues fall outside the framework of what is believed to be “real science.” A Cartesian dualism, such as body/mind, is based on men's perceptions of nature and culture as distinct entities, as men are more likely to engage in intellectual activity without having to accept responsibility for their own or others' bodies. Men's abstract conceptualizations of reality are predicated on women taking care of the shopping, cooking, child-rearing, laundry, cleaning, and other duties that aren't included in men's abstract conceptualizations of reality.  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur Others, like as Donna Haraway, see (scientific) knowledge as fragmented and physically grounded (but not necessarily the epistemological perspective of a particular social group). The perspective of a knowledgeable topic can always be traced back to a certain field — there is no objective “view from nowhere.” The arguments above differ in their conceptions of the subject and of society, but they all consider scientific knowledge as being dependent on the social contexts in which it is created. Science is not a neutral endeavour; rather, it reflects the values of the institution. Scientists frequently assert that their method of acquiring information makes their statements more true and valuable than those of other groups (who arrived at their conclusions by different means and on different grounds). They believe that, while certain categories of information, such as moral concepts, may be socially created, scientific knowledge should be free from such scrutiny. Because of the method through which we arrive at scientific knowledge, it has a unique authority and prestige. The “scientific method” - rigorous and methodical study, testing, and replication – ensures that scientific statements are true. The term "truthfulness" is used to describe a claim that is a direct reflection of a reality that exists outside of and separate from our perceptions of it. Instead, according to a social constructivist perspective of science, scientific knowledge is just as “social” as other types of knowledge. In the discipline of science studies, a social constructivist perspective on science emphasizes the social influence at the heart of technical judgments. It is maintained that empirical data always underpins scientific ideas, and that there are an endless number of hypotheses that might be used to explain the same collection of data. Despite this, scientists are able to “gel” around a small number of plausible hypotheses and eventually agree on which one is correct. This "truthmaking" process is a social activity in which the meaning of data is constantly contested and renegotiated. Scientific work in practice is more messy than in theory, according to sociologists of science (Knorr-Cetina 1981; Collins 1985; Fujimura 1988; Pickering 1992), and data always require interpretation, machines are constantly calibrated to generate information that “makes sense” (i.e., fits into a given frame of meaning), and tests and models are based on the assumption that Furthermore, experiments frequently go wrong, and scientists devote a significant amount of time to restraining errant material and tweaking factors until they work (Knorr-Cetina 1981; Latour & Woolgar 1986). The success of an experiment is determined by its result, which is then compared to a variety of prior assumptions about what "nature" looks like and whether the current result matches that nature. If the product is regarded to fit inside that framework, it will become a fact and will be considered not merely a good model of nature, but also a part of nature itself.  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur Social constructivists of all stripes also like to contend that science's ability to claim to be the ultimate kind of knowledge is based in part on its ability to appear to be so. C. Salient Features of the Science Dichotomy Science has a dual nature. It has the ability to uplift and tempt us with promises of a better tomorrow, free of disease and tedium, and it frequently delivers on these promises with actual technical and medical advancements. Such a bright future promised by technological progress can also be a source of fear and sorrow, as it merely serves to highlight the present's dark reality. So, where does the figure of the crazy scientist fall into this sphere of influence of science? The answer is no, it is not simple. From swindling alchemist to misguided father, the crazy scientist has played numerous parts in his long literary career. Such a diverse range of responsibilities attests to the large range of meanings that science can be considered to carry in general. The mad scientist is a parody of people's apprehensions about free learning. When his own intentions are analysed alongside his work and inventions, however, his picture becomes obvious. Most "crazy" scientists aren't actually insane because they're out for world dominance and destruction, but rather because they're caught up in the duality of scientific investigation. As a result, the appearance and use of the mad scientist symbol, particularly in the works of Mary Shelley, Karel apek, and Stanley Kubrick, allows for a more nuanced understanding of how science taps into humanity's fascinations and apprehensions, as science's approach to a perfect society only emphasises the distance to such a goal. The “master narrative concerning science and scientists is about fear—fear of specialised knowledge and the power that knowledge confers on the few, leaving the majority of the population ignorant and thus impotent,” according to Roslynn Haynes in her article “The Alchemist in Fiction: The Master Narrative”. She claims that the “typical” mad scientist scenario involves a demented megalomaniac threatening the earth and then failing to carry out his ambitions, leaving a “memory of disempowerment” among the general public to be recalled whenever a new scientific advance is made. “The mad scientist stories of fiction and film are homilies on the evil of science,” Christopher Toumey adds. As a result, Haynes and Toumey suggest that our interest with science in literature is characterised by fear and scepticism. Fear, however, is insufficient to support the image of the mad scientist, which dates back to the legend of Doctor Faustus and has lasted for almost 500 years. A certain sense of hope lurks behind these mad scientist and alchemist avatars, which intrigues and captivates viewers. Mad scientists, specifically Victor Frankenstein, are “the heirs of Baconian optimism and Enlightenment belief that everything may eventually be known and that such knowledge will surely be for the good,” as Haynes puts it in From Faust to Strangelove (94). Indeed, the protagonist of Mary Shelley's 1818 Gothic masterpiece provides a suitable beginning point for examining how the mad  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur scientist's work is marked by deeply embedded personal convictions and ideas of a better world, rather than by foolish or arrogant wants. Victor Frankenstein's obsession with science and eventual metamorphosis as a result of his efforts are examples of science's metamorphic power. Initially, the young Genovese dabbles in scientific research with caution. He examines the writings of Paracelsus, Cornelius Agrippa, and Albertus Magnus, and considers them "treasures known to few but [himself]." He is enthralled by his journey into the sciences, but he is cautious of plunging headlong into it. He goes on to say: The perfect human being must always have a calm and quiet mentality, never allowing emotion or fleeting desire to break his peace. The quest of knowledge, in my opinion, is not an exception to this norm. If the study to which you devote yourself has the effect of weakening your affections and destroying your liking for those simple joys with which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is undoubtedly illegal, that is, unfit for the human intellect.) The fact that such sensible warning against overindulging in intellectual pursuits comes from one of the most well-known images of the crazy scientist is a disturbing reminder of science's allure.ankenstein writes, "I was capable of a more intensive application, and was more deeply smitten with a quest for knowledge" once he discovers a partner and soul mate in the form of Elizabeth (18). His enthusiasm for science stems from allegedly lofty motives. Frankenstein, disillusioned by his mother's death from scarlet fever, pledges to "banish disease from the human frame and create man invulnerable to any except a horrible death" (22). Frankenstein sets out to answer the question, “Whence... did the principle of life proceed?” in order to achieve this goal. (30). Frankenstein's initial blunder is possibly best defined as falling into Haynes' paradox: "the search of freedom through knowledge" (99). As his hunger for knowledge intoxicates him, “the more Frankenstein learns, the more aware he is of his own ignorance” (99), and he separates himself from those he loves. He tries to flush out and find the essence of life, but his attempts, while successful in some ways thanks to the development of his monster, leave him even more disillusioned with life. Victor Frankenstein becomes more conscious of his own flaws as he learns more. He meets with M. Krempe, a professor of natural philosophy at the University of Ingolstadt, when he first arrives. When the enraged teacher inquires about Frankenstein's scientific background and learns of his devotion to the works of Cornelius Agrippa and Albertus Magnus, he chastises him, saying, "Every minute... every instant you have wasted on those books is absolutely and entirely squandered." You've clogged your mind with exploded systems and meaningless names” (26). Frankenstein is obviously discouraged after having his entire arsenal of knowledge tossed aside, yet he is all the more motivated to learn as a result of this experience. Victor's advances in injecting the spark of life into inanimate objects, on the other hand, have only led him to the conclusion that it is impossible to really construct a  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur human being with empathy and rationality. Despite the fact that he used only the most "beautiful" parts and traits to build his monster, the sight of his creation rising from the floor fills him with "breathless fear and revulsion" (35) Science seemed to be failing Frankenstein just as he should be celebrating his accomplishment. Frankenstein awakens from his hazy trance to realise that he has made something so bizarre that it horrifies him and makes him regret all the sleepless and secluded hours he spent in laboratories and morgues. In his book Unnatural: The Heretical Act of Making People, Philip Ball explains the logic behind his hatred with his creature. Because “the ‘natural' end of sex is procreation... the natural and only permissible beginning of procreation is sex” (18). Because he is so enamoured with the possibilities that the capacity to implant life into inanimate objects can give, Frankenstein fails to grasp this basic human reaction to "playing God." However, his vision of a brighter future is shattered by untold suffering at the hands of his monster. In Karel apek's 1920 science fiction drama R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots), the same disillusionment stems from science's failure to live up to its lofty aspirations. Rossum and Domin, the play's characters, both see a world in which robots are widely available and inexpensive, allowing mankind to trade in dull everyday labour for a life of joy and bliss. “I wanted man to become a master!” Domin exclaims to his coworkers as his robot business crumbles around him and his life hangs in the balance. So he wouldn't have to fend for himself! I didn't want to witness another person go numb from working over the machinery of others. I wanted nothing, nothing, nothing of that blasted social hierarchy to remain” (54). Such a vision of a paradise on Earth, where man is no longer subjected to the punishment outlined in Genesis, exemplifies the hope instilled by technological advancements. Though Rossum's robots do become more common and allow for more leisure time, they eventually evolve to the point where they can stage a global, violent revolution. Apek's picture of the future exemplifies how science can be both inspiring and horrifying. The utopia of "supermen" is Domin's fantasy, but the reality that follows scientific discoveries is a society where humans are hunted to extinction. Domin's perception of the world is "abnormal," because the freshly developed robots lack souls. The widely held view that “the ‘artificial human' has no soul” (7), as articulated by Philip Ball, may appear ancient, but it nonetheless has an impact on public perceptions of robots. Nana, for example, cries to Helena, "You dared to take upon yourselves the work of Divine creation out of Satanic vanity." To aspire to be like God is impiety and blasphemy” (32). Nana's viewpoint is representative of the general public's: that the aims do not always justify the means. As much as the mad scientist tries to break free from outdated limits on what is considered acceptable, he is enslaved by those segments of society that refuse to let go of old taboos. The popularity of robots demonstrates that society is not yet prepared for the level of autonomy that a seemingly autonomous system would provide.  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur D. Scientific Culture in the Developing Countries Scientific Culture. When confronted with the outside world, humans usually direct their intellectual production process in one of two directions. One is extensively investigating things' inherent development laws, while the other is abstracting data from their exterior forms. These two points come together to form the spiritual life of humans. Scientific culture, as a crystallisation of intellectual endeavours, is playing an increasingly important role in the development of human society among such intellectual creations. Science communication is more complicated than merely translating scientific jargon into layman's terms. The diversity and interconnection of its various parts, including the communication goals, the material to be given, the manner in which it is provided, and the individuals and organizations involved, contribute to its complexity. People approach science communication from a variety of perspectives—a mix of expectations, knowledge, skills, beliefs, and values impacted by broader social, political, and economic factors. Science communication organizations and institutes bring their own issues and influences to the table. Furthermore, the communication landscape is rapidly changing, presenting unparalleled opportunity to interact and connect with people but also posing several problems. Identifying the essential variables and best practices for effective science communication that predicts and responds appropriately to this complexity is a primary goal for those investigating the science of science communication. The difficulties raised in this chapter are relevant to conveying science on practically any topic, regardless of whether the science is at the center of a public debate about a sensitive issue. The following chapter delves more into the aspects that matter in explaining science, particularly when it comes to themes that are divisive in the public domain. Levels of Culture. As a way of life, culture largely refers to the concepts, values, behaviors and institutional patterns that are unique to and inherited by a civilization. It covers different dimensions and levels, such as: languages, traditions, values, attitudes, beliefs, behavioural norms and prevalent opinions, social habits, and social systems and regimes that adapt to those habits, tangible tools and works that are embodiments. Culture is intangible in real life, but it has an impact on how we think and act at all times. We are surrounded by culture. It always influences and confines us while we are at the same time modifying and creating it through our activities.  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur Culture in Different Times and Groups. In real life, culture shows clear differences in features at different times and for different groups. Such differences and features are evident in: the pursuit of values, which includes our outlook on the world and life and directly decides our sense of values; the mode of thinking, which includes our perspectives and ways in which we think, analyse and act when facing a problem, and directly decides the range, depth and level of our thought; patterns of behavior, which include behavioural norms such as ways of solving problems, communicating and behaving, and decide the environment and range of our activities and the way we handle matters; language style, which includes the language system we use and the way we communicate with others; an external form or a carrier, which displays the values and behavioural norms in the culture, and so can be called ‘cultural infrastructure’; and interests in life, which include apprecia- tion of and preferences in art, music and so on. A particular lifestyle is formed under particular socio-economic conditions. There are some differences in lifestyles in different historic periods, social groups and social classes, but lifestyles in different ages have some things in common, and the lifestyles of different social groups and social classes also influence and relate to each other. Features of Scientific Culture. Scientific culture includes the following distinguishing features that distinguish it from other social cultures: Practicality: Scientific culture is inextricably linked to the advancement of research and technology, as well as scientific community practical activities led by scientists. Precision and logic or rationality: Some researchers feel that, among all human societies' knowledge systems, scientific culture is unquestionably the finest in terms of systematic nature, precision, quantity, and quality (Li, 2017). Endogeneity or independence: It comes from the scientific community and is influenced and driven by the advancement of research and technology, generally independent of other social variables. Inheritance: It is passed down down the generations via conventions. For example, in the establishment of a school, the primary values and styles of thought, as well as skills and practises, are passed down. With the passage of time, a tradition emerges. Penetration: Scientific culture is not exclusive to scientific institutions and communities. It also refers to the widespread dissemination and application of  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur scientific information, methodologies, values, and ethical ideals in other social and cultural domains, which can result in either cultural integration or conflict. Social Function of Scientific Culture. Scientific culture arose at the same time as modern science and has evolved in lockstep with it. It progressively formed the core of contemporary civilization and culture as a result of this process, and it today has an unconscious influence on people. Snow (1959) believed that culture was important because it caused people to respond in the same way without thinking about it. So, what is scientific culture's societal function? Continue to encourage individuals to seek scientific truth. Scientists who work in the field of science share a common value: the quest of scientific truth. This is the opinion of a scientist. It is critical for scientists to adhere to scientific beliefs when conducting research (AAAS, 2001). For the healthy growth of science and technology, scientists must adhere to academic independence, truth, and honesty. They believe that studying and openly communicating scientific findings, hypotheses, and ideas is at the heart of research operations, and that it is the most effective way to ensure the correctness and objectivity of research results (UNESCO, 1974). Science is not the only field where integrity is valued, but it is the foundation for scientific thinking and practise (AAAS, 2001). Consanguinity, geography, nationality, religion, or socioeconomic rank will have no bearing on scientists' search and investigation of scientific truth. These principles, which are part of scientific culture, encourage brilliant people to set aside worldly values such as social position, reputation, riches, comfort, and ease in favour of arduous scientific endeavours. People with various temperaments, predilections, interests, and talents can thus trust one another, interact and collaborate with one another, admire, praise, and assist one another, building a community with comparable goals and working styles (Hu, 2014). A real scientist regards scientific truth as of utmost importance and will pursue it at any costs. Guides People’s Thinking. Culture is a communal method of thinking that separates one group from another in one sense. Scientific culture's most significant job is to change primitive thinking into logical thinking, and finally into scientific thinking (Xiao, 2007). The degree to which scientific culture has developed has an impact on how researchers seek truth, as well as the subjects they chose and how they conduct study. The following are features of scientific thinking: Emphasize the value of experimentation and observation. People should think rationally and logically in order to discover the internal laws of things, based on credible experiments, observation, and the achievements of predecessors and contemporaries (Peng & Peng, 2007).  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur Stress the Importance of experiment and observation. Scientific knowledge can only be defined as anything that has been validated. Science is defined by its verifiability. It indicates that one or more conclusions may be drawn from a statement and a set of initial conditions, and those conclusions can be compared to observation and experiment findings (Fei, 2004). Be skeptical and critical. This is the very essence of science. All existing hypotheses should be capable of being tested via experience, and everyone in the scientific community should be able to do so. Use scientific methods. Observation–induction, experimental investigation, and hypothetical–deductive procedures are examples of scientific approaches that secure the advancement of knowledge. One of the key characteristics that distinguishes scientific culture from other cultures is the mix of rationality and experience. Adhere to a unique mode of thinking or language system. A scientist should strive to explain facts in simple terms, explain the world through systematic theory, be exact and logical in structure, and be able to make future predictions. Normalize people’s research behavior. A culture is formed by the methods and standards of scientific pursuits. They safeguard the characteristics of scientific knowledge as well as the distinctions between scientific and non-scientific cultures. Scientific culture, according to Michael Mulkay, is often a set of social norms and knowledge that are not influenced by environmental factors. Those norms are usually a set of rules that specify specific forms of social behaviour openly (as cited in Liu, 2012). In general, both formal institutional restrictions and informal rules of behavior are included in scientific culture's institutional norms. The following precise items make up the norms: Norms for project applications. These include identifying genuine problems, developing plausible study plans, persuading sponsors through normative methods, verifying the accuracy and dependability of provided data, and preparing for peer review. Norms for conducting experiments.The main goal of scientific research is to discover scientific facts through observation and experimentation. Scientific facts must be based on accurate observation, rigorous reasoning, and results verification. These requirements are further subdivided into experimental design and technique specifications, as well as a focus on repeatable studies. For reciprocal verification and evaluation, as well as recurrent observation and experimentation, the time, location, environment, procedure, means, and results of observations and experiments should be clearly recorded (Fei, 2004). Norms for cooperation and exchange. In order to promote scientific innovation and exchanges of ideas among researchers, in-depth academic  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur contact is required in theoretical studies (Yuan, 2007). Face-to-face academic exchange, which has its own procedures and conventions, cannot be replaced by any other kind of communication. Furthermore, scientific research necessitates group collaboration, yet the ability of scientists to treat themselves and others with respect is critical to its success. The norms for scientists' cooperation have changed in the age of big research projects. Norms for thesis publishing. Scientists publish their theses mainly to report their research progress and record their research findings for the scientific community to conduct repeated verification and accumulate knowledge and to con- firm ownership of a scientific discovery. As a result, scientists must rely on reliable data and scientific procedures to draw logical conclusions in their theses. Science and technology journals are in charge of forming editorial boards comprised of highly competent experts who will assess the papers submitted and make publication decisions. Norms for Ethics. Rather than ethics and integrity, Robert K Merton argued that scientific objectivity was supported by scientific procedures, norms, and systems (as cited in Li, 2008). Scientific research, on the other hand, is an endeavour that is fraught with risk. It necessitates a large sum of money and labour, as well as the creation of succession plans. As a result, scientists should hold themselves to a higher ethical standard than the broader public. They are referred to as "neat freaks." In particular, modern science comes into conflict with some traditional ethics in such fields and procedures as transgenics, cloning, gene editing, synthetic cells, artificial intelligence, contraception, human anatomy, organ transplants, animal experimentation and in vitro fertilization. These have significant implications for social morality and ethics, thus scientists must adhere to scientific norms and ethics to the letter. Normalize Science Assesment. Science evaluation and award systems determine why and how people engage in scientific activities, so they are at the heart of scientific culture. They have the following characteristics: An emphasis on the decisive role of the ownership of a new discovery. Merton was the first to notice the scientific community's pursuit of priority and its emphasis on it, but the debate over priority arose during Newton's time. Originality, according to some scholars, is an important mark of scientific culture, so scientists and the scientific community place a high value on it (Li, 2017). Confirmation of priority means that the person who publishes and discloses a new discovery first will be granted priority. Professional advancement, a raise in salary, a larger research budget, scientific awards, or the honour of having the discovery named after the discoverer are some of the more common and direct rewards for priority, but recognition and respect from peers are more common and direct rewards. Scientists compete even  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur more fiercely than athletes to be the first in such a reward system based on precedence (Wang, 2006). An emphasis on the fundamental role of recognition from peers and peer review. Peer review is a mechanism that leads to peer recognition, which is a form of ‘hard currency' in the scientific community. Members of the scientific community value individual reputation above all else in the strict peer review system, and they rarely rely on officials and authorities (Li, 2017). Scientific awards based on peer recognition, in particular, are the highest honours for which scientists strive. Behavioral norms include awards and recognition because they tell people who is exceptional, which behaviours should be recognised, and what should be done and what should not be done. Recognition from society and the government can be more encouraging and influential if it is based on peer review and recognition from peers.  Respect for intellectual property. A scientific discovery's ownership is a unique property right that promotes the generation of public knowledge. It is the scientific system's fundamental property right. Patents for inventions and trade secret rights, on the other hand, are property rights that incentivize the creation of private information. To compare a patent to a right to trade secrets, the former implies knowledge dissemination, while the latter implies confidentiality; the former is a fundamental property right of the technological system, while the latter is a fundamental property right of the corporate system. The following three systems combine to form the entire society's knowledge generation system (Wang, 2006). Scientists should safeguard their own intellectual property while also respecting that of others. The rules of signature, quote, citation, and referring, as well as the rank order of patent certificates and science awards, are all markers of intellectual property protection in thesis publishing. Normalize the application of scientific achievements. Papers, patents, and technical know-how are examples of scientific outputs. Patents and technical know- how may bring great commercial benefits when they are used for developing new products and techniques, as well as programme design. Papers are published and available for reference, bringing social benefits, whereas patents and technical know-how may bring great commercial benefits when they are used for developing new products and techniques. This means that when scientists use scientific discoveries, they must follow a rigid code of conduct:  Scientists should not be excessively driven by material gains. They can, of course, benefit from their scientific studies, but that should not be their exclusive or even major goal. When a paper is published, especially in the case of theoretical research, it becomes part of public knowledge and the common wealth of society, allowing its results to be used frequently and freely  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur by anyone and shared by society as a whole. In this scenario, the optimum reward for the scientist will be confirmation of precedence. As a result, Ernest Rutherford argued that businessmen were given cash while scientists were given fame (as cited in Yan, 2002). Excessive money gain will harm all aspects of the scientific spirit, such as decreasing people's search of truth, causing damage to the complicated process of rational empirical investigation, surrendering to "bigwigs," reducing cooperation, and impeding creativity. Providing reasonably favourable material conditions for scientific inquiry is an efficient way to limit the overzealous pursuit of material riches (Yang, 2011). Scientific achievements should be used to promote human welfare. The main driver of modern science and technology progress is demand. Scientific breakthroughs, technical advancements, and scientific applications have opened up a great window of opportunity for society's development and progress. The application of scientific achievements should aim to broaden the range of human welfare while maintaining an appropriate balance between social and individual benefit—neither hindering or stifling scientists' innovative passion and creative vitality, nor jeopardising the public's fundamental interests. There should be reasonable limits on the application of scientific achievements. Scientific advancement is a two-edged sword. The misuse or abuse of scientific discoveries often has terrible consequences, especially when they are applied in situations that could lead to disaster. Socialize the values and behavioural norms of the scientific community. The public’s trust, understanding and support are necessary for the maintenance of scien- tific social systems and the development of scientific research. This is the socialization process of the culture of the scientific com- munity, which includes the following aspects: Society endows the scientific community with a certain degree of autonomy. Only when scientists have responsibilities for the society they serve can society provide long-term and stable support for scien- tific research (Han, 2008). The traits of scientific spirit, such as universality, sharing, absence of bias and methodical scepticism, are in fact a set of values and behavioural norms that constrain scientists’ behaviour. They are expressed in terms of regulations, preferences, permissions and prohibitions and are legalized through institutional values. These indispensable norms, conveyed through warnings and examples and rein- forced through preferences, are internal- ized by the scientist, and thus form his or her scientific conscience (Merton & Lin, 2000). The requirement of scientific research for free exploration, and the establishment of the strict, self-disciplined mechanisms of the scientific community, make it both necessary and possible for society to endow the scientific community with a certain degree of autonomy.  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur The norms of the scientific community are recognized and accepted by the general public. The socialization of the scientific community’s culture shows that the public is willing to respect, appreciate and accept the core content and important aspects of that culture and take them as behavioural norms and values. This willingness makes the key content of the scientific community’s internal culture become a part of society’s culture, and so scientific culture becomes popular culture, which is in fact the process of popularization of science. In this sense, it is too narrow to limit the popularization of science to the populari- zation only of scientific knowledge. It also includes the dissemination of the scientific spirit, scientific methods and scientific thought. The scientific community’s discourse system is popularized. On the one hand, the scientific community’s discourse sys- tem has expanded to all aspects of human life through scientific achievements and has become an important part of humans’ living environment; on the other hand, scientists should explain the cultural con- tent of science, introduce it into public discourse through the mass media and guide people in changing their way of thinking. In developing countries, when this transferred scientific culture collides with local traditional culture, a new kind of scientific culture will appear, which should in one sense be a popular culture with distinct national characteristics. III. ACTIVITIES 1. Explain how the printing press became useful in the scientific media production in the 19th century. (5 pts) 2. In matrix, rank the three (3) contemporary media used according to effectiveness of influence of science communication to the public. Place along two more columns beside each medium indicating its upside, the other, downside. (15 pts) 3. Contrast Sagan Effect and Kardashian Index in relation to scientists’ use of online media in science communication. (5 pts) 4. Show in a timeline how science communication popularized in the Philippines from its earliest conceptualization up to the modern period. (10 pts) 5. Explain the phrase “As human beings we are always generating and recreating reality”. How does this notion affect our perception and appreciation of science? (5 pts) 6. In seeing the trend of development in many industrialized countries today, where do you think science will bring us: peaceful and uplifted life, or sorrowful and dreaded life? Justify your answer. (10 pts)  Republic of the Philippines PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY Goa, Camarines Sur 7. Rate from 1-5 (1-poor, 5 excellent) the diffusion of scientific culture in our country. If your rating is below 3, where do you think is the problem? If more than 3, what do think is the reason? Explain. (10 pts) IV. ASSESSMENT ✔ To be posted at the Google Classroom V. REFERENCES Allen, P. (n.d.) The dichotomy of Science. Retrieved at: https://www.bu.edu/ writingprogram/journal/past-issues/issue-6/allen/ Artal, L. R. (2015)A Brief History of Science Communication. Social Construction of Science. Retrieved at: https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2015/02/06/a-brief-history- of-science-communication/ Montemayor, G., Navarro, M., & Navarro, I. (2020). Philippines. From science then communication, to science communication. Retrieved at: https://press- files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n6484/html/ch28.xhtml? referer=&page=31 Social Construction of Science. (n.d.) Retrieved at: https://sociology.iresearchnet. com/sociology-of-science/social-construction-of-science/ Wang, C. (2018). Scientific culture and the construction of a world leader in science and technology. Cultures of Science 2018, 1(1): 1–13 Wikipedia Website. Science Communication. Retrieved at: https://en.wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Science_communication