Table of contents

With this issue, the journal Public Understanding of Science begins its second decade. Such a milestone deserves some comment, a moment for assessing where we've been and where we might go.

Founding editor John Durant began this journal because of his conviction that an outlet was needed for the increasing number of research studies that examined issues associated with the public's interaction with science.¹ Unlike other publications devoted to increasing public understanding (whatever that might mean) or to providing comment on public interactions with science, we are fundamentally a scholarly journal, committed to publishing research-based material that will enhance communal knowledge about the nature of public interaction with science. Our growth over the decade confirms Durant's original belief: we have both studies to publish and an audience interested in that work.

We have other markers of success as well. The most recent Journal Citation Reports published by the Institute for Scientific Information (for the year 2000) indicates that articles from Public Understanding of Science were cited more than 150 times that year. While that number puts us only in the middle of the 43 ``communication'' journals, we rank fourth in the ``impact factor'' for that category, above such frequently cited journals as Public Opinion Quarterly,Journal of Communication, and Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, as well as more specialty journals including ones frequently used by our own colleagues and authors, such as Health Communication and Science Communication. As befits a multidisciplinary, multi-perspectival journal such as ours, we also appear in the JCR's ``history and philosophy of science'' category, where our total citations again put us about halfway down the list of 28 journals. But also again the impact factor is much higher - we are third highest in impact, following only Social Studies of Science and Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science.

Many of the contributors to this journal will be quick to note the limitations of quantitative data. For them, we have other markers. First is the anecdotal data, such as the messages that come in saying ``I've just learned of your journal and it's exactly what I'm looking for!'' or the report from a colleague visiting India that his hosts immediately asked, ``Isn't Public Understanding of Science edited at your school?'' But most interesting, I think, is our place in Daniel Greenberg's new book, Science, Money, and Politics (reviewed later in this issue).² Greenberg, a science journalist since the late 1950s and the longtime editor and publisher of the highly-regarded newsletter Science and Government Report, devotes two full chapters to the scientific community's use of ``public understanding of science.'' He identifies in the United States - as many of our readers and contributors have identified earlier in Europe - a ``public understanding of science'' movement that equates better ``understanding'' with better public support of unfettered government financing for basic scientific research.<sup>3</sup> He is sharply critical of this position, arguing that ``whatever is meant by public understanding of science, no evidence is offered, because none exists, of a consistent relationship, negative or positive, between public understanding of the whole or parts of science and the provision of public money for research.'' As part of his indictment, Greenberg notes a bit scornfully that ``academic respectability for the public-understanding movement is certified by a quarterly international scholarly journal, Public Understanding of Science, edited at Cornell University and published jointly by the U.K. Institute of Physics and The Science Museum, London.''⁴ That's us! Notice in a broad discussion of science and society constitutes a kind of success.

Unfortunately, I think Greenberg has missed the point of much of the work in the journal, and that thought tempers the success a bit. While we have certainly published many articles based on the assumption that better understanding leads to greater support, we have also published a great many articles critical of what is now called the ``deficit model.''<sup>5</sup> We have published and will continue to publish detailed methodological explorations of the measurement of science literacy, and the associated questions of public attitudes toward science and public support for science.<sup>6</sup> Yet we have also published - and again will continue to publish - detailed studies showing the complexity of public interactions with science, interactions that cannot easily be categorized into ``doesn't know much'' vs. ``supports science.'' Instead, these cases have demonstrated the multitude of publics who use scientific information (or information that they define as scientific) and with which the scientific community interacts, publics who make meaning of science only in specific local contexts, often dealing with uncertain knowledge, policy (and political) decisions, and the enduring tensions between ``expert'' and ``lay'' perspectives.<sup>7</sup> In dialectic with the ``deficit model,'' we now have ``contextual'' models and ``lay knowledge'' models and other new perspectives still being developed.

As a journal, we have been and will remain a place where the conversation among these models can take place, and where empirically-based scholarly work will be welcomed regardless of philosophical perspective. Though we exist in time alongside a ``movement,'' Public Understanding of Science itself is of no movement but that which seeks greater exploration of the social world in which we live. Moving forward, we must become more successful at making that independence clear and at making the diversity of the field accessible to all of our audiences.

Clearly we will build on a wonderfully strong base. Scanning the contents of the journal's first decade, I am struck by the range of topics we have covered. We have had special issues on Chernobyl, on the public's relationship with genetics, on global climate change, and on the Human Genome Project, as well as many individual articles on those topics.⁸ We have looked at newspaper content, television content, magazine content, movie content, museum content.⁹ We have explored traditional scholarly issues of gender, race, and rhetoric.¹⁰ And we have been open to new topics, such as those brought on by cyberspace.¹¹ Nor have we shied away from controversy, from the overarching issues of the ``science wars'' between (mostly) physical scientists and sociologists of science, through the more detailed dissection of what counts as ``success'' in the burgeoning world of science museums.¹² Our quarterly bibliography (compiled by William Evans), the book reviews, and the practical perspectives point readers to yet more work in the field.

I am especially proud that we have opened our pages to reports from diverse cultures and countries, exploring the meanings of science and public in Russia, China, Australia, India, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Portugal, and Japan, as well as the wealthy countries of western Europe and North America.¹³ In the future, we must continue to bring in perspectives from around the world (including Africa, Latin America, and more of Asia, as well as the areas already represented), for science is one of the key players in globalization, and the nature of public engagement with scientific knowledge and science-based technologies and industries has and will continue to shape public reactions to globalizing forces.

Such a quick summary of Public Understanding of Science's first decade is clearly incomplete, and the topics cited above are just some of the many that together have made this journal a success. No potential contributor should assume that his or her topic is unwelcome. In the future, we will continue to seek out the best scholarship, whether historical analysis (which I, trained as a historian, would like to see more of) or contemporary cases, whether quantitative survey data or rhetorical textual analysis, whether focused on the images in public presentations or the responses to expert testimony - all topics that address the interrelationships between science and public are appropriate for this journal. I invite you to join me in enjoying them, arguing with them, learning from them.

Bruce V. Lewenstein Ithaca, New York, USA New Year's Day, 2002

References

[1] John Durant, ``Editorial,'' Public Understanding of Science 1, no. 1 (1992): 1-5.

[2] Daniel S. Greenberg, Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion (Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago Press, 2001).

[3] Steve Miller, ``Critiques and contentions: Public understanding of science at the crossroads,'' Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 1 (2001): 115-20 (IOP Article); Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust, ``Science and the public: A review of science communication and public attitudes toward science in Britain,'' Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 3 (2001): 315-330 (IOP Article).

[4] Greenberg, Science, Money, and Politics, p. 207.

[5] For a recent example of the ``more information leads to more support'' approach, see Sachiko Mitsuishi, Kazuto Kato, and Keiko Nakamura, ``A new way to communicate science to the public: The creation of the scientist library,'' Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 2 (2001): 231-241 (IOP Article).

[6] See, for example, George Gaskell, Daniel Wright, and Colm O'Muircheartaigh, ``Measuring scientific interest: The effect of knowledge questions on interest ratings,'' Public Understanding of Science 2, no. 1 (1993): 39-57 (IOP Article); Geoffrey Evans and John Durant, ``The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science,'' Public Understanding of Science 4, no. 1 (1995): 57-74 (IOP Article); Jon D. Miller, ``The measurement of civic scientific literacy,'' Public Understanding of Science 7, no. 3 (1998): 203-223 (IOP Article); Benoit Godin and Yves Gingras, ``What is scientific and technological culture and how is it measured? A multidimensional model,'' Public Understanding of Science 9, no. 1 (2000): 43-58 (IOP Article); and Rafael Pardo and Felix Calvo, ``Attitudes toward science among the European public: A methodological analysis,'' Public Understanding of Science 11, no. 2 (2002) (forthcoming). When these articles explicitly address the linkage between knowledge and support that concerns Greenberg, they generally support his claim that evidence of linkage is weak, though with some complexities and caveats.

[7] See, for example, Brian Wynne, ``Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science,'' Public Understanding of Science 1, no. 3 (1992): 281-304 (IOP Article); Sally Eden, ``Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions,'' Public Understanding of Science 5, no. 3 (1996): 183-204 (IOP Article); Sandra Wallman, ``Ordinary women and shapes of knowledge: Perspectives on the context of STD and AIDS,'' Public Understanding of Science 7, no. 2 (1998): 169-85 (IOP Article); Simon Locke, ``Golem science and the public understanding of science: From deficit to dilemma,'' Public Understanding of Science 8, no. 2 (1999): 75-92 (IOP Article); Steven Yearley, ``Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge: Two analytical approaches and a case study,'' Public Understanding of Science 9, no. 2 (2000): 105-22 (IOP Article).

[8] Public Understanding of Science 1, no. 3 (1992), on Chernobyl; Public Understanding of Science 4, no. 3 (1995), on ``The new genetics''; Public Understanding of Science 8, no. 3 (1999), on ``The Human Genome Project and the public''; and Public Understanding of Science 9, no. 3 (2000), on ``Global climate change and the public''; a forthcoming issue will feature a special section on biotechnology and the European public. Examples of individual articles include Anne Kerr, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, and Amanda Amos, ``Drawing the line: An analysis of lay people's discussions about the new genetics,'' Public Understanding of Science 7, no. 2 (1998): 113-33 (IOP Article) and Stephen C. Zehr, ``Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change,'' Public Understanding of Science 9, no. 2 (2000): 85-103 (IOP Article).

[9] Peter Broks, ``Science, media and culture: British magazines, 1890-1914,'' Public Understanding of Science 2, no. 2 (1993): 123-39 (IOP Article); Suzanne de Cheveigné and Eliséo Véron, ``Science on TV: Forms and reception of science programmes on French television,'' Public Understanding of Science 5, no. 3 (1996): 231-53 (IOP Article); Julia B. Corbett, ``When wildlife make the news: An analysis of rural and urban north-central US newspapers,'' Public Understanding of Science 4, no. 4 (1995): 397-410 (IOP Article); Alberto Elena, ``Skirts in the lab: Madame Curie and the image of the woman scientist in the feature film,'' Public Understanding of Science 6, no. 3 (1997): 269-78 (IOP Article); Marilee Long and Jocelyn Steinke, ``The thrill of everyday science: Images of science and scientists on children's education science programmes in the United States,'' Public Understanding of Science 5, no. 2 (1996): 101-19 (IOP Article); Sharon Macdonald and Roger Silverstone, ``Science on display: The representation of scientific controversy in museum exhibitions,'' Public Understanding of Science 1, no. 1 (1992): 69-88 (IOP Article).

[10] Glynis M. Breakwell and Sue Beardsell, ``Gender, parental and peer influences upon science attitudes and activities,'' Public Understanding of Science 1, no. 2 (1992): 183-98 (IOP Article); Fatimah Jackson, ``African-American responses to the Human Genome Project,'' Public Understanding of Science 8, no. 3 (1999): 181-91 (IOP Article); Marilee Long, Greg Boiarsky, and Greg Thayer, ``Gender and racial counter-stereotypes in science education television: A content analysis,'' Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 3 (2001): 255-69 (IOP Article); Felicity Mellor, ``Gender and the communication of physics through multimedia,'' Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 3 (2001): 271-91 (IOP Article); Alan G. Gross, ``The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science,'' Public Understanding of Science 3, no. 1 (1994): 3-23 (IOP Article).

[11] William P. Eveland, Jr., and Sharon Dunwoody, ``Users and navigation patterns of a science world wide web site for the public,'' Public Understanding of Science 7, no. 4 (1998): 285-311 (IOP Article); Steve Fuller, ``The first global cyberconference on public understanding of science,'' Public Understanding of Science 7, no. 4 (1998): 329-41 (IOP Article); Richard Rogers and Noortje Marres, ``Landscaping climate change: A mapping technique for understanding science and technology debates on the World Wide Web,'' Public Understanding of Science 9, no. 2 (2000): 141-63 (IOP Article).

[12] On the science wars, see Gerald Holton, ``How to think about the `anti-science' phenomenon,'' Public Understanding of Science 1, no. 1 (1992): 103-28 (IOP Article); ``Multiple review of The Unnatural Nature of Science by Lewis Wolpert,'' Public Understanding of Science 2, no. 3 (1993): 257-274; Felicity Mellor, ``Essay review: Scientists' rhetoric in the science wars,'' Public Understanding of Science 8, no. 1 (1999): 51-56 (IOP Article). On science museums, see John G. Beetlestone, Colin H. Johnson, Melanie Quin, and Harry White, ``The science center movement: Contexts, practice, next challenges,'' Public Understanding of Science 7, no. 1 (1998): 5-26 (IOP Article); James M. Bradburne, ``Dinosaurs and white elephants: The science center in the twenty-first century,'' Public Understanding of Science 7, no. 3 (1998): 237-53 (IOP Article); and Per-Edvin Persson, ``Science centers are thriving and going strong!'' Public Understanding of Science 9, no. 4 (2000): 449-60 (IOP Article).

[13] See, for example, Helene Knorre, ```The star called Wormwood': The cause and effect of the Chernobyl catastrophe,'' Public Understanding of Science 1, no. 3 (1992): 241-50 (IOP Article); Adolf Filácek and Eva Krizová-Frýdová, ``The public image of science in the Czech and Slovak republics,'' Public Understanding of Science 3, no. 1 (1994): 83-97 (IOP Article); Zhongliang Zhang and Jiansheng Zhang, ``A survey of public scientific literacy in China,'' Public Understanding of Science 2, no. 1 (1993): 21-38 (IOP Article); Bharvi Dutt and K. C. Garg, ``An overview of science and technology coverage in Indian English-language dailies,'' Public Understanding of Science 9, no. 2 (2000): 123-40 (IOP Article); Maria Eduarda Gonçalves, Maria Teresa Patrício, and António Firmino da Costa, ``Political images of science in Portugal,'' Public Understanding of Science 5, no. 4 (1996): 395-410 (IOP Article); Jiro Shibata, ``A new approach to surveying public opinion on different areas of scientific research,'' Public Understanding of Science 5, no. 1 (1996): 29-40 (IOP Article).

This paper addresses the use of metaphors in creating public representations of biotechnology in the United Kingdom's leading quality press. Metaphors referring to biotechnology and its applications have been analyzed in press articles covering the period 1973-1996. The paper describes how metaphors can be used to popularize complex technical information while at the same time providing a highly charged message about the technology itself. The analysis draws conclusions about the content and general direction of the debate on biotechnology during the past three decades.

In this article, we conceive of scientific literacy as a property of collective activity rather than individual minds. We think of knowing and learning science as situated in and distributed across social and material aspects of a setting. To support the proposed conception, we provide several detailed cases from our three-year multi-site ethnographic study of science in one community, featuring different types of citizens who walk a creek, interact during an environment-oriented open-house event, discuss water problems, collect data, and have different conceptions of human-environment relations. The case studies show that collectively, much more advanced forms of scientific literacy are produced than any individual (including scientists) could produce. Creating opportunities for scientific literacy to emerge from collective activity, irrespective of whether one or more participants know some basic scientific facts, presents challenges to science educators very different from teaching basic facts and skills to individuals.

How can the very different worlds of science and religion communicate effectively? Religion requires faith, belief without question. Science demands we take nothing on faith, reject any anecdotal evidence. How might these seemingly opposed disciplines collaborate to improve public understanding of science and impact pending policy making without undermining spiritual well being? Are scholars from both disciplines engineering the needed bridges?

Scientists and artists increasingly engage each other's work. This paper provides an initial analysis of that engagement, highlighting the challenge of materials, the fascination of scientific paradigms, the artist's ability to assist with scientific investigation, and the need to explore the political and ethical consequences of science.

Science and the Citizen is a collection of essays and empirical articles intended to provide ``a range of views about the various problems confronting the enhancement of the public understanding of science, and the implications for school science'' (p. v). Though focused largely on public understanding in Australia, Roger Cross and Peter Fensham bring together authors from Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the People's Republic of China. The 17 chapters encompass three themes: Science and the Citizen, Issues for the Schooling of Science, and School Science and the Public Interest.

The first section deals with the issue of transmitting science to the citizen outside of formal education through museums, public lectures, and the mass media. Science topics in these diverse chapters range from those with little impact on daily life (e.g., astronomy), to those with direct impact (e.g., medical information). A key issue, raised by Rennie and Williams, is that of dealing with a ``heterogeneous public'' who tend to be receptive to scientific information only if it is perceived as useful. An interesting paradox arises in that Watson shows that astronomy, despite lack of direct relevance, is well received by the public.

The seven articles in ``Issues for the schooling of science'' share a concern for the challenges of making school science relevant for all students and citizens. One challenge common in three chapters is the issue of the pedagogical value of controversy in science. In their discussion of the ethical and social issues surrounding biomedical research, Levinson and colleagues point to a number of constraints to formally teaching controversial science, including the interdisciplinary nature of such discussions, and the comfort level of teachers in dealing with argument and debate. These authors advocate use of classroom argumentation in asking ``How can the expertise of different teachers be exploited to formulate a coherent approach to teaching controversial issues in science?'' (p. 118).

Thomas, in contrast, discusses the ``educational dilemma'' of using public controversy as a pedagogical tool. Using cases studies (e.g., genetically-modified food), he point outs that the science needed to understand these issues is quite complex, and moreover that students could become confused or frustrated by the uncertainty of such topics, citing a fine line between healthy skepticism and cynicism. Noting that controversy in the classroom can augment critical thinking and argumentation, Thomas draws attention to ways in which it can also have a negative impact on students' perception and understanding of science.

Dawson contributes a particularly provocative essay about the limits of science education. He demonstrates that controversial STS issues often revolve around political and economic implications more so than an understanding of underlying scientific concepts. A salient take-home message is that it is time for science education to stop over-promising what it is capable of delivering, and to delineate how best to teach science for citizenship.

The issues of what should be taught in school science, and how scientific literacy should be operationalized, are in another chapter led by Fensham and joined by Law, Li, and Wei. These authors suggest an alternate, ``socio-pragmatic'' framework to acknowledge that there are different ``publics'' with varied needs who function within diverse contexts. The promise of the socio-pragmatic approach is demonstrated with an exploratory study.

Proposals for curriculum reform are presented in the last section of the book, ``School science and the public interest.'' These non-traditional curricula represent efforts from four countries and address practical issues of translating debates about public understanding into curricular frameworks and learning objectives that address science education for the non-scientist.

Plant describes and compares a standard outcome-based curriculum used in Australia to an alternate framework focused specifically on the public understanding of science. Cross, Zatsepin, and Gavilenko present details of a unique effort to reform curricula in the Ukraine, in response to the Chernobyl disaster. The development of a new science course for the Netherlands is outlined by Eijkelhof and Kapteijn. They include details about content, teacher training, and textbook development of this ``non specialist'' course for \hbox{15-18} year-olds, including its reception by students and teachers. Millar's contribution is particularly interesting in its focus on the reasons for decisions behind the development of a new course for public understanding in the United Kingdom.

Overall, ``Science and the Citizen'' is a rather eclectic set of papers. Although similar in theme, the chapters should not be viewed as a cohesive collection. The brevity of the chapters in the first section allows only a cursory sense of the specific concerns about public awareness of science via informal means. Chapters related to schooling are better developed, providing a more thorough treatment of the topic. As a whole, however, a wide range of issues are addressed that are relevant for those interested in science for citizenship.

Corinne Zimmerman Learning Research & Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Dan Greenberg watches science like I watch Sam Spade - with a combination of contempt and admiration for the mercenary efficiency exhibited. Greenberg portrays science with familiar film noir tropes: Follow the money. Nobody's innocent. Every action is strategic. In a pithy summary, he writes a line that almost could have been spat from beneath the smoke-shrouded brim of the detective's fedora: ``Piety competes poorly with economics'' (p. 469).

Almost, but not quite. ``Piety can't compete with economics'' would have been John Huston's version and, alas, Greenberg did not have the great director to hone this ambitious but rambling work into the taut and gripping tale of the corruption of the truth seekers. As our best-known and most incisive journalist of politics and science, Greenberg has produced a book that is more than splicing together issues of his Science and Government Reports. But Science, Money, and Politics is a work of journalistic detail and vision without the clarity of argument or analysis that some recent work in the political science or sociology of science achieve.

Greenberg's plot is a rousing one. He traces the arc of science's ``political triumph'' in greenbacks. There has always been more money for science, yet scientists crave more still. Gallingly, they get it - not because, like other interest groups, they threaten elected officials with the mobilization of votes and money against them, but because they selectively mythologize their history and offer coy promises of future discoveries and triumphant applications. The consequence of easy money, Greenberg says, is ``ethical erosion'' - an unseemly moral disengagement just short of decadence. Science retreats into a comfortable, apolitical ``ghetto'' of its own making. Scientists emerge only to propagandize the public into appropriating more money, to chastise anti-scientific challenges to its hierarchical position, or to pass the hat in search of new money from industry.

Greenberg traces this ascent and lapse through his mastery of the report-writing culture of inside-the-Beltway science policy, and he taps a trove of interviews with the mandarins of science from his journalism contacts. He meticulously portrays subplots of lying with statistics on projections for the scientific work force, the hectoring of the State Department for its lack of science advice, and the ever-ringing false alarm of falling funds. Particularly valuable is Greenberg's telling of Nobel laureate Leon Lederman's attempt, backed by the National Science Foundation, to create a science-positive television drama. Greenberg deftly punctures Lederman's over-inflated trial balloon by letting him speak though his grant application and script outline, which sought ``an audience that watches NFL football and Masterpiece Theatre'' (p. 238). ``The Dean'' never came close to production.

Yet Greenberg's own script is flawed, for he misplaces science and constricts politics. Science is ill set in a ``ghetto.'' Wealthy, privileged, and isolated by choice, science may reside in an ``enclave'' but not in a ``ghetto.'' And Greenberg constrains politics by framing science as apolitical. He crops out the politics of ideas and symbols, and he ignores the political nature of the conduct of science and the organizations of scientists themselves.

Moreover, money is not the full measure of the relationship between politics and science. Here, Greenberg counters scientists' hazy recollections of a ``golden age'' by sketching a smooth upward curve of funding through the late 1960s and early 1970s. But his Politics of Pure Science identified that period, through modest changes in appropriations, as a critical inflection point. Greenberg dismisses the hiccup in funding the early 1990s by reference to the boomlet of the late 1990s. Yet he treats both recent periods without reference to national economic performance or trends in domestic discretionary spending. Science funding cannot be separated from these phenomena.

Greenberg's noir-ish instincts serve him well as a journalist but less so as a scholar. At times he betrays them, giving his reader too much information, especially spates of redundant epithets for federal agencies. The book, published by the University of Chicago Press, has scholarly trappings. Greenberg wrote it while in residence at the Johns Hopkins University's Department of History of Science, Medicine, and Technology and with a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. It has a brief ``note on sources and methods,'' footnotes, and a bibliography. Awkwardly, the bibliography does not contain all the references included in the footnotes, and Greenberg's drawing on published sources is highly selective, taking little advantage of science policy and science studies scholarship. This selectivity leads him to hand up some hasty indictments. He condemns the science policy community, along with the science community, for continuing to accept the founding myth of Science, The Endless Frontier. He also takes scholarship in the public understanding of science as monolithic in its rationalization of scientific prestige and accuses Public Understanding of Science of ``certif[ying]'' ``academic respectability'' for this effort (p. 207). Although he takes pains to defend the social sciences against diatribes by natural scientists, Greenberg does little to understand them or make use of their contributions - ironically contributing to their own ghettoization.

Greenberg's book reveals self-interest, hypocrisy, and out-and-out greed where naïve observers of science might be surprised to find it, and where many scientists would stammeringly deny it existed. Informative and, at times, scenically instructive, the book however provides no novel insights into the politics of science for students of the genre. Like the Maltese falcon itself, the golden promise of a magisterial work turns out to be lacquer and lead.

David H. Guston Department of Public Policy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

Here is our bibliography of recent scholarly publications on (1) public attitudes regarding science and technology, (2) the role of mass and interactive media in science, health, and risk communication, and (3) science and technology museums, zoos, and natural history centers. In addition, this bibliography aims to guide readers to relevant bibliographic resources available via the Internet. We welcome comments, and hope that readers will call our attention to materials that appear outside of the mainstream of journals in science communication, science studies, mass communication, health communication, and risk communication. Please send comments and references to William Evans, Department of Communication, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303-3083, USA (fax +1-404-651-1409, e-mail evans@gsu.edu).