Science communicators face two perennial problems: first, how can one maintain the integrity of science communications in the face of forces which may tend to degrade them, and second, how can science communications be made more useful for the individuals who are most in need of their messages? The author offers some practical advice for addressing these questions in context.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Foreman, C. H., Jr.1995. Editorial commentary—Witchcraft science in the cinema of epidemics. Science Communication17 (1): 3-8.
2.
Kostoff, R. N.
1995. Handbook of research impact assessment. Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research.
3.
LaFollette, M. C.1994. Editorial: Changing our name, adding new voices, renewing responsibility. Science Communication16 (1): 3-10.
4.
LaFollette, M. C., ed. 1995. Special issue: Intellectual property rights, Part 1. International intellectual property rights in a web of social relations. Science Communication17(2).
5.
LaFollette, M. C., ed. 1996. Special issue: Intellectual property rights, Part 2. International intellectual property rights in a web of social relations. Science Communication17(3).
6.
Valente, T. W.
, and E. M. Rogers. 1995. The origins and development of the diffusion of innovations paradigm as an example of scientific growth. Science Communication16 (3): 242-273.
7.
Werner. E. E.
, J. M. Bierman, and F. E. French. 1971. The children of Kauai. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
