Molecular dynamics simulation of liquid benzene is exploited to test the degree of sensitivity of the local structure to the intermolecular potential. Three effective potential models (based on a six Lennard-Jones centres potential) are investigated. The usually admitted picture of a liquid with quasi-crystalline short range molecular arrangement is shown to be very doubtful.Analysis of the crystalline structure predicted by the different interaction potentials indicates a manifest superiority of the only model including a point quadrupole at the centre of the benzene ring
The present comment examines to what extent science communication has attained the status of an academic discipline and a distinct research field, as opposed to the common view that science communication is merely a sub-discipline of media studies In his review How to establish PCST. Two handbooks on science communication (JCOM 7(4) December 2008), Alessandro Delfanti queries a claim in the bookCommunicating science in social contexts that science communication already 'is a distinct research field'. He sees in both books 'an explicit effort to establish PCST as an independent academic field, different from both science and technology studies and communication and media theory'.After pondering the question of whether we really need the creation of a new discipline such as public communication of science, Delfanti concludes that despite the growing strength and quality of the field, PCST still has some work to do if it is to distinguish itself as separate from fields such as science and technology studies, and media and communication studies. JCOM has asked the editors of the books to respond: "Starting from the experience of your book, it would be interesting for us to have a contribution concerning what is "specific" of science communication research. What does distinguish it from something that could be considered a sub-discipline of media studies, sociology of science or history of science? In addition, which is the relation between research in science communication and the more general field of Science and Technology Studies? In other words, why does science communication deserve a special attention as an academic discipline?'We may not be able to demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that science communication has attained the status of 'a discipline'. Apart from anything else, the definitions are varied and the ground is hotly contested. What we can do, though, is to chart the progress science communication has made as an emerging subject over the last 50 years in terms of a number of measures.Science communication has established an identity over the last 50 years. In the aftermath of WW2, governments increasingly regarded science as important. At the same time they recognised their own lack of skills in the area, so appointed special advisors to lead presidents and politicians through science-based issues.James Killian was appointed in 1957 as Special Assistant to the US President for Science and Technology, followed in 1965 by Sir Solly Zuckerman's appointment as Chief Scientific Adviser in the UK 1 . These were the first two advisers and others followed, all performing a classic communication role of translating the significance of research results for a lay audience. A little earlier, "science communication (or popularization)" had been enshrined in the constitutions of both India and China. So the subject had a political imperative.
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
After more than 20 years spent in communication and PR (Public relations) departments of publicly funded research organisations, I have to say that the question addressed by these commentaries is an interesting one. It is always a healthy exercise to question the very essence of our own work: what are we, as professional communicators, doing? What are we aiming at? Within our respective organisations, what is our main task: are we promoting (mainly) science communication or (mainly) the institution which employs us? I tend to answer: 'None of these'. Firstly, because to a very large extent research institutions do not promote genuine communication. Real communication (in the sense of a dialogue) is still almost absent in the fields of science. And secondly because research institutions' PR work hardly involves the real 'public'. Nevertheless, I tend to agree that we are trying to develop public communication, in addition or in parallel with promoting science relations. Most research institutions target in priority their 'stakeholders', which include decision-makers, politicians and the scientific community. The public (and young people in particular) is too far away from their short-term objectives and longterm challenges. Similarly, media is not a target per se, but essentially a means to reach (and hopefully influence) stakeholders and opinion leaders. This leads to the following question: what should research institutions, which are the main producers of scientific knowledge, be doing in the field of public communication/PR? Should they rethink and reorganise their activities?JCOM 13(03)(2014)C03
This chapter reports on current trends in science communication in Europe in the light of several recent studies by the European Commission. The author investigates why the European public's scientific knowledge, as measured by the surveys, has increased substantially over the past few years. He then reviews coverage of science in the European media and analyses the relationships between European scientists and journalists and recent trends in reportage. Noting that it has become harder to gain public acceptance of scientific and technological innovations in Europe, the author argues that the science-society dialogue is insufficiently developed because a genuine communication culture is lacking in the science and technology sector. This lack may hamper the advancement of the sector.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.