Abstract

Man could well have originated Science Communication with the early discoveries, the most important being the discovery of fire. In India sage Atharvan is credited for this discovery. With the progress of human civilization, modes of communication also changed forms, from body language and other early forms to a well developed language – Prakrat. Next important milestone with a significant bearing on communication was, development of agriculture. A whole host of scientific literature was created in India during Vedic, post Vedic and classical periods. Medieval period saw emergence of newer trends in science communication when commentaries on earlier scientific texts were written and structures like Jantar Mantar were built. But these were accessible to a few elites in the society. The real shift in science communication in favour of the common man became evident in modern times when it was now possible to bring out publications in large numbers. Science communication proliferated in independent India and more recently after arrival of NCSTC on scene, when more concerted efforts are on in this direction. This paper discusses the trends now emerging in India given the efforts, the slackness in quality and moves to improve it, the plurality of media, and a sound science and technology base of the country; arrived at through an indepth survey intended at furthering the cause of science communication and scientific temper.

Key Words

Science and technology communication, Evolutionary trends, Modes of communication, Science popularisation, Scientific temper

Introduction

During early days, there was no science communication, as such. But as we understand it today, the technology, science and communication existed from the very beginning. There had been a number of turning points during the cultural evolution of man in India, from where we can mark the beginning of science communication, but it is very difficult to pin point a single incident being origin of Science Communication in the country.

Origin of science communication in India

The earliest origin point of science communication can be marked, when early man had made primitive stone tools and disseminated them, some time during 1,50,000 years ago or earlier. Then came the use and control of fire and dissemination of fire kindling technology. Preparation of cave sketches/drawings was the next step. Cro-Magnon man lived in the Indian sub-continent, who prepared cave sketches, did experiments and prepared records some 40,000 years ago (NCSTC exhibition on history of science and technology, 1998). These can be considered as the early modes of science communication.

According to Satyaprakash (1967), the invention of fire was done in India by sage Atharvan and the technology was disseminated throughout the known areas of human population just like a jungle fire. The fire churners were in great demand at that time and everybody was keen to have the information on churning the fire. The family of Atharvan and his pupils, including their families, were the resource persons for information on fire churning technology. The communication of the technology of producing fire during early days can be correlated to the beginning of the rudiments of science communication.

The evolutionary trends of science communicationevolved so far in the country, and the efforts are on to find out newer and innovative modes, means and ways to communicate and popularize science more effectively and in an interesting manner.

Qualitative patterns

Undoubtedly, science communication activities and programmes have progressively developed in India, in terms of quantity. There are science magazines, TV programmes, radio programmes, large number of publications, field activities, exhibitions, interactive programmes, etc. to popularize science among people. But the other side needs to be focused now.

Sharma K (1993) has commented on popular Hindi science magazines — “most of the popular science magazines are depending upon translations, that creates a lot of distortion in the presentation.” He also rightly commented on science writers — “they tend to prepare a story or a report only siting inside the room, without going outside or interacting with scientists, who are associated with the story, or covering on-the-spot events.”

Not only in print, but in broadcast media also, the misleading scientific information, a continuous decay of creativity in presentation, distortion in translation, inconsistency in organizing the contents, lapses in the use of language, and many more deviations can be seen frequently.

Singh (1993) contends – “that popular science writing in India is still shackled by complacency and over dependence on foreign sources. While there is nothing wrong in looking at foreign sources, they are unfortunately used for plagiarism”.

Very often, it has been seen that a writer uses the popular article of another writer as a source for his writing and subsequently a third writer is using his article and a chain of substandard articles is formed, without consulting the primary source. Thus a series of such distorted communications appear in the media, as if it were original science writing. In case of translations, the technical terms are generally misinterpreted, especially in their subsequent versions by other writers.

Survey to identify, confirm and analyse emerging issues

In order to analyse the present status of science communication in India, various parameters were used in the two surveys conducted to understand the trends of the demand and supply of scientific information through various media of science and technology communication in the country. On the basis of the surveys, a comparative analysis was done and gap in the demand and supply of scientific information in the media, was identified. Following is the methodology and an analysis of the above surveys.

A. Survey of science writers/journalists/communicators

Methodology

Realizing the fact that the science writers/ journalists/communicators are the potential source of scientific contributions appearing in the mass media, the author selected some 500 science writers/journalists/communicators from among the members of the Indian Science Writers’ Association (ISWA), media organizations, voluntary organizations, government and non government organizations, etc., who are engaged in various activities of science communication in the country, bearing in mind that the communicators from various geographical regions, languages, and media are covered. A questionnaire was designed for the purpose and sent to them. The questionnaire had two parts; personal information and objective type questions. Some 250 responses were received, of which some 200 were found to be in order. The analysis is given below :

Analysis

i) Question 1

Total number of scientific contributions by the respondent for science communication through the media was asked in this question. The total contributions of all respondents during last five years, were 32,887.

ii) Question 2

Media-wise break-up of total contributions was asked in this question. The total break-up, and percentage is as follows :
 

a)	Print :  (Newspapers/Magazines)	19,711	59.93%
b)	Audio (Radio) :	5,280	16.05%
c)	Video (TV) :	3,360	10.22%
d)	Folk : (Theater/Street Play/ Puppetry/Folk Song)	1,281	03.89%
e)	Interactive : (Lecture/Demonstration)	2,558	07.79%
f)	Digital : (On-line Publications)	697	02.12%

iii) Question 3

Target group-wise break-up of total contributions was asked in this question. The total break-up and percentages are as follows :
 

a)	Scientists/Experts :	5,520	16.78%
b)	General Public :	23,500	71.45%
c)	Students	1,907	5.81%
d)	Children/Women :	1,080	3.28%
e)	Farmers/Tribes :	610	1.85%
f)	Handicapped :	270	0.83%

iv) Question 4

Format/style-wise break-up of total contributions was asked in this question. The total break-up and percentages are as follows :
 

a)	Research Articles/Papers:	3,680	11.19%
b)	Popular Articles/: Talks/Features	23,020	69.99%
c)	Science Fictions/ : Plays/Comics	1,040	3.16%
d)	Poems :	90	0.28%
e)	Interviews/Discussions :	2,023	6.15%
f)	Science News/ : Commentaries/Reports	3,034	9.23%

iv) Question 5

Scientific discipline-wise break-up of contributions was asked in this question. The total break-up and percentages are as follows :
 

a)	General Science :	9,617	29.24%
b)	Biological Science :	4,575	13.92%
c)	Earth/Physical Science :	3,338	10.15%
d)	Agricultural Science :	3,347	10.18%
e)	Medical/Health Science :	8,090	24.59%
f)	Environmental Science :	3,920	11.92%

v) Question 6

The respondents were asked about their opinion on the present status of science communication in India, in this question. The responses are as follows :
 

a)	Excellent	0	(0.0%)
b)	Very Good	17	(8.50%)
c)	Good	88	(44.00%)
d)	Average	92	(46.00%)
e)	Poor	3	(1.50%)

The majority of the respondents are of the view that the present status of science communication in India is between ‘Average’ and ‘Good’.

B. Survey of audience/viewers/readers :

Methodology

One thousand readers, listeners and viewers were randomly contacted by the author, either during his visits to various places in the country or through the science writers/organizations engaged in various activities of science communication in the country, bearing in mind that the respondents from various geographical regions, languages, socio-economic fabrics and professions, including literates, illiterates, women, children, tribes, handicapped, etc. are covered. A questionnaire was designed for the purpose. Some 500 responses were found to be in order. The analysis is given below :

Analysis

i) Question 1

The area of general interest was asked in this question. The responses are as follows :
 

a)	Science & Technology :	12.66%
b)	Social/Arts/Culture/Religion :	32.66%
c)	Sports :	14.13%
d)	Films/Songs :	8.33%
e)	Politics :	24.15%
f)	Crime :	8.07%

ii) Question 2

The preference for media was asked in this question. The responses are as follows :
 

a)	Print (Newspapers/Magazines)	35.29%
b)	Audio (Radio) :	04.76 %
c)	Video (TV) :	29.36 %
d)	Folk (Theatre/Street Play/ : Puppetry/Folk Song)	19.32 %
e)	Interactive (Lecture/ : Demonstration)	09.25 %
f)	Digital (On-line Publications) :	02.02 %

ii) Question 3

The target groups were asked in this question, to whom science communication is needed. The responses are as follows :
 

a)	Scientist/Expert :	4.33%
b)	General Public :	37.20%
c)	Student :	20.00%
d)	Children/Woman :	23.65%
e)	Farmers/Tribals :	12.66%
f)	Handicapped :	02.16%

iv) Question 4

The favorite format/style of presentation was asked in this question. The responses are as follows :

 

a)	Research Articles/Papers :	04.33%
b)	Popular Articles/Talks/Features :	28.17%
c)	Science Fictions/Plays/Comics :	36.45%
d)	Poems :	06.27%11.12%
e)	Interviews/Discussions :	13.66%
f)	Science News/Commentaries/ : Reports

v) Question 5

The scientific discipline of interest was asked in this question. The Responses are as follows :
 

a)	General Science :	21.49%
b)	Biological Science :	05.23%
c)	Earth/Physical Science :	13.26%
d)	Agricultural Science :	17.78%
e)	Medical/Health Science :	27.07%
f)	Environmental Science :	15.17%

vi) Question 6

The respondents were asked about their opinion on the present status of science communication in India, in this question. The responses are as follows :
 

a)	Excellent :	37	(7.4%)
b)	Very Good :	57	(11.4%)
c)	Good :	182	(36.4%)
d)	Average :	123	(24.6%)
e)	Poor :	101	(20.2%)

The majority of the respondents are of the view that the present status of science communication in India is between ‘Average’ and ‘Good’.

Demand and supply analysis

These surveys were also designed to generate enough data for carrying out analysis of a very important nature, namely the ‘Demand and Supply Analysis’. This data was arranged to arrive at the results considering various parameters. The results are given below :

Difference in demand and supply
 

	Media-wise	Supply	Demand(%)	Difference (%)
a)	Print (Newspapers/Magazines)	59.93	35.29	+24.64
b)	Audio (Radio)	16.05	4.76	+11.29
c)	Video (TV)	10.22	29.36	-19.14
d)	Folk (Theater/Street Play/Puppetry/Folk Song)	03.89	19.32	-15.43
e)	Interactive (Lecture/Demonstration)	07.79	09.25	-01.46
f)	Digital (On-line Publications)	02.12	02.02	+00.10

Target group-wise
 

a)	Scientists/ Experts	16.78	04.33	+12.45
b)	General public	71.45	37.20	+34.25
c)	Students	05.81	20.00	-14.19
d)	Children/Women	03.28	23.65	-20.37
e)	Farmers/Tribals	01.85	12.66	-10.81
f)	Handicapped	00.83	02.16	-01.33

Format/Style-wise
 

a)	Research Articles/Papers	11.19	04.33	+06.86
b)	Popular Articles/Talks/Features	69.99	28.17	+40.82
c)	Science Fictions/Plays/Comics	03.16	36.45	-33.29
d)	Poems	00.28	06.27	-05.99
e)	Interviews/Discussions	06.15	11.12	-04.97
f)	Science News/Commentary/Reports	09.23	13.66	-04.43

Scientific discipline-wise
 

a)	General Science	29.24	21.49	+07.75
b)	Biological Science	13.92	05.23	+08.69
c)	Earth/Physical Science	10.15	13.26	-03.11
d)	Agricultural Science	10.18	17.78	-07.60
e)	Medical/Health Science	24.59	27.07	-02.48
f)	Environmental Science	11.92	15.17	-03.25

Conclusion

Recent studies indicate that science coverage attributed to mass media is absymally poor, i.e. around 3 per cent, which is far below the desired level of 10-15 percent. The present study is an attempt to find out the extent of demand and supply of S&T coverage in various mass media and to pin point the gap areas. On the basis of a survey conducted, some interesting inferences were drawn. Near about 12.66 % respondents were interested in science and technology coverage. This inference seems to be exactly in conformity with the desired level of science coverage in the country.

While looking at the demand and supply analysis, the demand seems to be very less in some cases. This however, is a false situation limited by the necessary expansion which may leap many times in near future. The demand and supply analysis shows a pattern of more or less coverage in different aspect, which has been indicated by the sign (+) and (-) respectively. More (+) coverage does not really mean that the science coverage in that particular aspect is more than enough. In fact that seems to be more, as compared to other aspects, but as a whole, that is within the entire coverage of 3% only. It only indicates, that on which aspect, more attention is needed. The figures shown in (-) are reflecting the gap areas, where more concerted efforts are needed to be put in by the science communicators and science communication agencies, media organisations, etc. to bridge these gaps to serve the mankind better.

Science certainly does not fare well when we talk of readers’ interest but it is also true that we need to work in the direction of making science interesting. A lot more creativity is required in the field of science writing and communication; perhaps this is what we lack at the moment. Science fictions have achieved the status of best sellers in the west, whereas we hardly have anything significant of this type of science writing. Low interest in sciences can be traced to another reason that we are not prioritising two important segments of our readers, the students and the farmers in the manner that is of interest to them. There is reasonable interest in the folk media, especially in the rural areas and this media does not find enough attention vis a vis science communication.

It is time to recognise the shift in target population’s interest i.e. towards television and science programmes should be created in enough number through formats that is most attractive to them, it may not be incorrect to say that docu-drama would be the most sought after format of science communication through television.

When, India is passing through a crucial turning point of its development, we must take emerging trends into our stride and redraw our policies and plans, to be a nation of scientifically thinking and scientifically informed people.

References

1. Satyaprakash, Bharatiya Vigyan Ke Karnadhar, 1967, Research Institute of Ancient Scientific Studies, New Delhi.

2. Sharma Kuldeep, Kuchh Roti Kuchh Sisakati Vigyan Patrikyein, 1993, Hindustan, New Delhi.

3. Singh Ranbir, Are Most Science Writers Nearly Plagiarists? 1993, Pioneer, New Delhi.

4. Toynbee A, Mankind and Mother Earth - A Narrative History of World, 1976, Book Club Association, London.

5. Sharma R D, Botanical Science in Ancient India, 1993, Bhagirath Book Trust, Ghaziabad.

6. Sharma O P, Trends in Scientific Terminology, 1962, National Bureau of Educational Publications, New Delhi.

7. Patairiya Manoj, Hindi Vigyan Patrakarita, 1990, Taxshila Prakashan, New Delhi.

8. Patairiya Manoj, Vigyan Sanchar, 2001, Taxshila Prakashan, New Delhi.

9. Vaidik V P, Hindi Patrakarita - Vividh Aayam, 1976, National Publication House, New Delhi.

10. Vilanilam J V, Science Communication and Development, 1993, Sage Publications, New Delhi.
    
    
     

<< Back