Science and Technology Information Seeking, Scholarly Communication, and Open Access

Florence M. Paisey

The Web is an information resource of extraordinary size and depth, yet it is also an information reproduction and dissemination facility of great reach and capability; it is at once one of the worlds largest libraries and surely the worlds largest copying machine.

The Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the Information Age National Research Council: Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Emerging Information Infrastructure, 2000

Table of Contents

Preface................................................................................................................................4 Information Literacy in Science: The ACRL Definition....................................................6 The ACRL Science and Technology Standards and IS Models........................................13 Unique Characteristics of the ACRL Science and Technology Standards........................15 Communication and Flow of Scientific Information.........................................................17 Patents, Intellectual Property, and Digital Data Depositories............................................22 References..........................................................................................................................27

4 Preface The following essay explores information seeking and the search process characteristic of academic professionals in the sciences. In addition, it discusses key issues that relate to scientific information: its ownership, its exchange and production or communication, and some of the legislation and policy issues that have come into play with the large scale research needs of megasciences and open access depositories such as SPARC. The essay commences with the ACRL definition of information literacy in the sciences and a description of generic information skills that, potentially, bring about effective information management in the sciences. It is difficult to speak about information seeking in a generic sense, particularly in the sciences. Context alone does not explain the differences in information seeking among scientific disciplines. The force of habit, whether given to optimal results or not, often plays into how scientists construct their thought and interact with information sources. While humanities scholars consult definitive works on potential research topics, scientists, on the whole, first engage in discourse with their peers, and then develop research methodology and strategy. For those scientists working in applied fields, such as medicine, roles generate discrete tasks and demand knowledge with the possibility of an information need and query. The topics of communication in the sciences as well as property rights to data are also briefly explored. Communication models are evolving first through modernization with a view to transformation. Property rights to data, generated by those involved in the megasciences, are complex with grayed and ambiguous boundaries; there is no simple answer. Each aspect of information behavior and information seeking explored here is a

5 deeply engaging topic in its own right. I have merely identified points, at issue, in an effort to understand how information impacts individual interaction with sources, the flow of scholarly communication, and research policy.

6 Information Literacy in Science: The ACRL Definition Information literacy involves recognizing an information need and seeking answers to that need through questions one asks. It may be viewed as a generic ability of citizens in a democratic society to make well informed choices based on the critical evaluation of a wide range of information sources (Alexandersson & Limberg, 2005). Fundamentally, information literacy and information literacy in science involve the same goals: identifying and satisfying information needs. Information literacy identifies a general set of cognitive, physical, and technical skills applicable to unscientific information; information literacy in science deals with cognitive, physical, and technical skills characteristic of specific disciplines in science and scientific thought. The generic ACRL Information Literacy Standards set forth broad information skills and behaviors that will foster the ability to manage and use information in general. The ACRL Science and Technology Standards distinguish information skills that are distinctive to the nature of and goals of science. The ACRL provides a definition of information literacy in science and engineering. This definition directed the development of the information literacy standards and performances specific to science and engineering/technology. The ACRL defines information literacy in science as: a set of abilities to identify the need for information, procure the information, evaluate the information and subsequently revise the strategy for obtaining information, to use the information, and to use it in an ethical and legal manner, and to engage in lifelong learning (ACRL, 2006).

7 The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) developed the Science and Technology Information Literacy Standards (ACRL, 2006) as an outcomes-based framework for students and professionals in higher education. They include five Standards and 26 performances or performance indicators with associated outcomes, all intended to implement the practice of information literacy in science and engineering/technology, as conceived and described by the ACRL. These Standards are scaffolding upon which specific, granular performances will bring about meaningful and ethical individual information management and use as conducted by students, scholars, and researchers in higher education. They support in-depth, inquiry-based information searching. This is the fundamental intent underlying the ACRL Science and Technology Standards. Like the general ACRL Information Literacy Standards, the science and technology standards derive from cognitive task analyses of experts or the analysis of specific sequences of action and cognitive processes employed by experts when satisfying an information need (Vakkari, 2003). In the case of the ACRL Science and Technology Standards, the information need would relate to science and require information searching appropriate to the nature of a scientific discipline. Wilsons model of information behavior and information searching (1999) offers a cohesive representation or grounding of information behavior and the search process regardless of the discipline. His description of information behaviors (2000) as information seeking, information searching, and information use also corresponds to levels of goal-directed information behavior whether the informational goal is of a scientific nature or otherwise. The search process itself follows from an information need to the

8 satisfying of that need. However, as Vakkari (2003) has pointed out, the search process and outcome are dependent variables consistent across searchers, disciplines, and domains. The independent variable involves user characteristics and those factors in users that cause systematic variation in search process and outcome. The ACRL Science and Technology Standards may be viewed, basically, as the dependent variable or the search process, with specific features that directly relate to specialized sources of information and the character of scientific communication. The independent variable, the user and those factors, such as the need for scientific information, may be viewed as process variables that cause systematic variation in the search process. In general, the Standards provide the dependent variable, a search process, though specific features of the process such as search tactics or term choices could be viewed as either dependent or independent variables, depending on the formulation of the problem (ibid). For example, as a search process, the ACRL Standards for Science and Technology serve as a template; the characteristics of the user and the information need will determine variation in the use of the Standards. Within the Standards, Standard 2 includes 5 Performance Indicators. They include the selection of investigative methodology, the construction of a search strategy, the retrieval of information, refinement of the search (if necessary), and the use of appropriate technology to record pertinent information. These performances are consistent; they are dependent variables. However, the methodology one selects to investigate an inquiry, the terms or vocabulary a user employs or the formulation of how to pursue a search whether to refine a search or not, the search strategy would be characterized by the user and, as such, would be independent variables.

9 The ACRL Science and Technology Standards support the search process in scientific disciplines. However, they do not identify specific work roles and tasks that would characterize the users information need, interaction with sources of information, communication cycle, or the outcomes of the search process: the search result. It is this aspect of information searching, user characteristics, that cause systematic variation in search process and outcome that is, that are systematically connected to searching and search results (Vakkari, 2003). Leckie & Pettigrew (1996) studied the information habits and flow of three professional groups engineers, health care workers, and lawyers. Based upon their findings, they developed a general model of information seeking for professionals, the ISP model. Six components form the basis of the model, including: 1. Work roles 2. Associated Tasks 3. Information Needs 4. Awareness 5. Sources 6. Outcomes The first component specifies the varied roles a professional assumes in professional life. A physician may assume multiple roles such as diagnostician, therapist, medical administrator, examiner, counselor, researcher, teacher, colleague, manager, medication therapist, and crisis caretaker. Each of these roles engenders tasks that, in turn, trigger information needs, giving rise to an information search process (ibid). The information search process will be shaped by the characteristics of the information need. These needs

10 will vary according to many possible factors; both independent and intervening or covert variables will come to bear. A note of wariness is worth mentioning here. The independent variable is the user; intervening variables will affect the user, producing an effect on the dependent variable the search process. The independent variable is known, controlled for, and manipulated so that one can determine its effect on the dependent variable in this case the search process. Intervening variables will also produce an effect on the dependent variable or search process, but will not be immediately accessible; intervening variables are internal, covert, unobserved factors that can be inferred and identified only by manipulating the independent variable. A clear distinction between independent and intervening variables was not clear in Leckie & Pettigrew (1996). Independent variables might be age, years of medical experience, hours on the job, specialization, and the frequency with which the physician encounters the task as well as the information need. Intervening variables might be the degree of information needed, the confidence level of the physician, the clarity of the information need does the physician understand clearly what question to follow or is research required to identify possible diagnoses, then possible courses of treatment. Personality and preferences in research will also affect the search process and may be viewed as intervening variables until an assessment is conducted and one controls for specific variables (Heinstrm, 2003). An awareness of ones expertise or limitations will affect recognition of the information need as well as the ability to diagnose an ailment accurately; these would be intervening variables until they become known quantities.

11 An awareness of the information sources and ones perception of the ease or difficulty in accessing these sources will also affect the search process (Leckie & Pettigrew, 1996). This level of awareness may be affected by accessibility, familiarity, prior experience, cost, and timeliness. Where does one find information relating to the need, what is the currency of the information, how accessible are sources? These are a few of the issues involved in how information sources are perceived. Leckie & Pettigrew (ibid) identify sources of information as channels or formats of information. These channels or formats are distinguished as formal and informal, internal and external, oral and written. Formal channels include conferences and journals; informal channels include colleagues. Leckie & Pettigrew (ibid) describe the stratification of channels further in distinguishing between internal (sources within an organization corporate engineers frequently utilize internal sources or channels) and external (conference proceedings, medical literature, the Internet). In addition to these distinctions, sources are viewed as either oral channels or written channels. One of the characteristics of a user will be their preference for particular channels or sources of information. These are all variables that can be controlled for, so user characteristics and the search process can be examined with greater clarity. However, in order to associate particular user characteristics with a path in the search process, these variables should not be estimated; rather, they require identification and control. The final component in the Leckie & Pettigrew ISP model is outcomes. Outcomes are defined as the end-point of work-related information requirements of specific roles and tasks (ibid). The satisfaction of the information need is recognized as the optimal outcome such as diagnosing an ailment, completing paperwork, submitting an appeal, or

12 producing a product. If the satisfaction of the need has not been met, a feedback loop provides the path to iterate another search process. As repeated searches are carried out, the user may alter some of the independent variables such as search terms or specific sources. The Leckie & Pettigrew model of the information seeking of professionals (ISP) has been applied to various professions in the sciences, including medicine, biomedicine, dentistry, nursing, engineering, and software engineering, among others. The notion of specific roles and associated tasks that give rise to information needs grounds the context of information seeking by recognizing task goals or in complex tasks the series of actions undertaken in pursuit of a goal (Vakkari, 2003). The model at issue also discusses the effect of independent and intervening variables on the search process, though the construct falls short of including likely points of static along the information search continuum or flow. Its strength lies with recognition that the interaction of roles and tasks plays a significant role in the formulation of an information problem, and subsequent need. The Leckie & Pettigrew model (1996) has held up in limited studies, particularly those studies looking specifically at the relationship between roles, tasks, and information needs. The model does not provide for a situational context, reportedly a significant factor in a medical search process (Gruppen, 1990). However, the Leckie & Pettigrew model provides a valuable dimension to Wilsons expansive model. It does not stand an as alternative to Wilsons information behavior model; it may be subsumed within this model, along with Ellis behavioral micro-search, in providing further understanding and representation of information behavior, in particular, the information behavior of professionals.

13 The ACRL Science and Technology Standards and IS Models If one were to layer the Leckie & Pettigrew ISP model (1996) within Wilsons information behavior model (1999), one could identify a particular context in which a role is performed, tasks associated with that role, and the characteristics of the information needs. Wilsons model provides for independent and intervening variables along the path to the search process. This search process, as Vakkari (2003) has pointed out, is the dependent variable that user characteristics will act on, causing variation in search process and outcome. As traits of the user become known, a search path becomes more predictable and systematic. Such knowledge will facilitate the searchers understanding of the process, but will also inform systems designers in their effort to create systems that support search features with typified search processes. The ACRL Science and Technology Standards specify standard behaviors, performances, and performance outcomes that demonstrate competences in a standard or activities carried out in a search process, particular to disciplines in science. As previously stated, Wilsons macro-model (1999) can be layered with dimensions of information behavior. While the Leckie & Pettigrew (1996) model nests from context to information need and three aspects of a search, Ellis behavioral model of chaining fosters an understanding of micro-search habits of scientists. The ACRL Science and Technology Standards offer behaviors, strategies, and values that scientific investigation or the search process in science requires. These standards can be integrated with Wilsons expansive model (1999), Leckie & Pettigrews (1996) ISP model, and Ellis search chain. This is not an either-or situation. None of these models or standards is a complete representation of information behavior and the search process. Each supplies a dimension

14 of the search process in this instance, the search process with features to support scientific investigation. The ACRL Science and Technology Standards stand as a thorough account of performances required in such a search process. The degree to which one aspect of the standards is applied relates to user characteristics, intervening variables, and the information need.

15 Unique Characteristics of the ACRL Science and Technology Standards Baldwin (2005) identifies several unique characteristics of performances and their outcomes to information literacy in science and engineering/technology. In Standard 1, Performance Indicator 2, Baldwin points out that types and formats of sources for information will be subject specific. She lists several types of source information essential to study in most of the science disciplines. These sources include handbooks, patent literature, standards, specifications, and product literature (ibid). Each science discipline, both applied and pure, will have indispensable core reference sources. In medicine, indispensable sources would include the Physicians Desk Reference (PDR), the Merck Manual, Stedmens Medical Dictionary, and Mosby's Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary, to name a few. In psychology, the Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science has been core for several years, while the Mental Measurements Yearbook and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM IV) have been standard information manuals for decades, with periodic updates. In physics and general sciences, a few core handbooks and manuals would include the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Handbook of Physical Quantities, and the Handbook of Physics. The Periodic Table is viewed as one of the most important classifications of the natural world and would be included in all science collections, as would the Encyclopedia of Associations and Organizations, both National and International. OSHAs standards and specifications for safety would also be relevant across all science disciplines and some social sciences. In addition to the types and formats of scientific information, Baldwin underscores the importance of recognizing how scientific, technical, and related information is formally

16 and informally produced, organized, and disseminated as well as understanding the flow of scientific information and the scientific information life cycle (Baldwin, 2005). This aspect of Standard 1, Performance Indicator 2, is particularly significant in determining the credibility and currency of scientific information. What was credible and definitive a decade ago in physics, chemistry, or medicine may well have changed considerably. Furthermore, as information and communication technologies have spread and advanced, communication and the flow of scientific information have altered, though not fundamentally or universally yet. As this aspect of science will potentially effect dramatic changes in the information search process of scientists, it merits a bit of discussion.

17 Communication and Flow of Scientific Information Information and communication technologies have changed the way scientists communicate. However, as Hurd (2000) points out, these changes are incremental and with a few modifications, fundamental practices still reflect the dominant use of communication channels established generations ago weakening the argument for technological determinism. Scientific communities have integrated ICTs, but such integration has developed upon existing practice, selectively and gradually. Recent studies of communication practice support this assertion (Leckie & Fullerton, 1999; Fidel & Green, 2003). Hurd (2000) recognizes that ICTs are catalysts that both modernize and will, ultimately, transform the social networks, information flow, and dissemination of scientific information. The earlier scientific communication practice referenced above alludes to the Garvey & Griffith (1964) foundational model of scientific communication, a model that emerged during the print-on-paper era. This model continues to characterize scientific communication with technologies that support traditional channels or functions, adding capabilities to an evolving communication system (Hurd, 2000). More than forty years ago, Garvey & Griffith (1964) conducted a study of the communication and information needs of scientists. Their initial study focused on the information behaviors of psychologists (ibid). Their findings were accepted as representative information searching, exchange, production, and dissemination in both the physical and social sciences. Garvey & Griffiths groundbreaking study (ibid), and their involvement in it, emerged from what had been described as a scientific information

18 crisis (ibid). They ultimately found, contrary to their initial thought, that the exchange of information in research evolves predictably and can be experimentally modified (ibid). Garvey & Griffiths study looked at the information behaviors of scientists as they attempted to satisfy their information needs. They traced the dissemination process from the time a researcher starts work until reports of that work have appeared in secondary publication sources. The processes of scientific communication and information exchange revealed a dynamic interaction among informal and formal media or information sources. This interchange typified the means by which scientists mapped investigation that would satisfy their information needs; it also formed the basis for the study of scientific communication as a social system or from a sociological perspective. Scientific communication, exchange and flow, was found to be well organized and predictable with established communication channels and venues for discourse, review, and eventual inclusion into an official body of literature. The Garvey & Griffith model recognizes that the information need precipitates scientific investigation, but unlike general models of information behavior, it does not look at individual information seeking and searching or the cognitive field of information processing. Garvey & Griffith looked at the larger picture, a macro-depiction, identifying the channels, purposes, and results of discourse within the context of scientific endeavor. The outcome of these social, contextualized channels of information exchange would be publication in peer-reviewed journals, then secondary sources. Their model is sociological in nature, rather than psychological. Such a model is of fundamental importance in understanding information behavior as a cultural phenomenon as well as an event within a context, situation, or a profession in this case, the sciences and the scientific community.

19 Information literacy in science, as in all domains, requires an awareness of the culture, profession, and community in order to understand the nature of a specific in this case, scientific communication interchange and cycle. Such understanding will facilitate all interaction with information channels and sources within scientific disciplines or contexts, as well as general information skills. Within the scientific disciplines, knowledge of the striation or structures of sources that distinguish scientific literature is essential. Of particular significance is gray literature or newsletters, reports, working papers, theses, government documents, bulletins, fact sheets, conference proceedings, and other publications distributed free, available by subscription, or for sale (Weintraub, 2000). Other sources important to distinguish are published monographs, primary and secondary sources and their place in the flow of information within the cycle. Understanding the place of an information source within the cycle enables one to formulate sound evaluative criteria, relevant to ones information needs. The sociological aspect of information flow and communication in science has analogous aspects to individual information behavior. Analogues involve the perception of ones information need, formulation of a precise question, the search for information, development of search strategy, metacognition, and potential revision of the hypothesis, thesis, or concept. All of these elements of information searching require interaction with information sources, formal and informal. Generally, the initial phase, or that which characterizes information seeking, involves informal discussion and debate with ones colleagues as a means of negotiating the information question, assessing its value, identifying pre-existing information sources related to the issue, operationalizing the question, and devising a methodology to investigate the question. The information need or

20 task uncertainty (Fuchs, 1993) may arise out of ones observation, a diagnostic report, research report, reflection, or in a tight social network, small world or invisible college (Crane, 1972). Newman (2001) looked at the social network or collaboration network of scientists, finding that they form small worlds in which scientists cluster within the proximity of a few connected acquaintances. The notion that scientists chat, informally, within social networks, small worlds, or invisible colleges supports the Garvey & Griffith model that scientific investigations, generally, start with the information need, but that the pursuit of the issue is discussed and hypotheses formulated, informally, collaboratively, or within small worlds or invisible colleges as preliminary dialogue that will direct a course of scientific investigation. Again, this observation holds up in current practice, as the findings of numerous studies have concluded (Leckie & Fullerton (1999; Fidel & Green, 2003; Tenopir & King, 2004). The Garvey & Griffith model of scientific communication continues to represent the sociology of scientific communication despite widespread use of ICTs. While scientists may not write letters as previously, they employ the same means of communicating, but in a modernized way. Hurd (2000) distinguishes between a modernized and a transformed communication system. She states: Modernized features are those that employ technology to support and update traditional functions that endure because they continue to be valued by a community of scientists (ibid).

21 Communication features such as telephones, e-mail, fax, audio and video capabilities via the Web, and expeditious travel for collaboration update the communication channels of the Garvey & Griffith model, but the fundamental channels and norms in communication have not altered. The invisible college is broadening its membership to a virtual invisible college where communication relies on the Internet (Hurd, 2000), including scientists who have, heretofore, been unable to participate in elite collaborative networks. Yet, these are functional modifications that have simply enhanced communication. The essential social structure and communication habits remain unchanged; they are built upon a long-standing scientific communication model, initially described by Garvey & Griffith. The fundamental paradigm of scientific communication will transform when scientific organizations redefine roles and extend collaboration for services. This reorganization is under way, particularly in big science, characterized by enormous facilities, with vast data banks. The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) is an example of a redefined role for organizations (ibid); this coalition emerged as an effort to reduce costs of serials. Gradually, transformation of roles and channels of communication will materialize, but, as yet, the scientific communication system that has been in place for generations continues, with updated communication features.

22 Patents, Intellectual Property, and Digital Data Depositories Baldwin (2005) observes a few other unique features of scientific disciplines. Of note is her reference to Standard 1, Performance Indicator 2, and Standard 2, Performance Indicator 2. Both of these performances relate to intellectual property Standard 1 lists patent literature; Standard 2 lists research data as intellectual property (ACRL, 2006). These two performance indicators are closely related and have become critical issues among scientists, particularly those involved in megascience. The United States Patent and Trade Office (USPTO), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, includes intellectual property in its concept of a patent. Its purpose serves the interest of inventors and businesses with respect to their inventions and corporate products, and service identifications (USPTO, 2006). The United States Patent and Trade Office defines intellectual property as: Creations of the mind creative works or ideas embodied in a form that can be shared or can enable others to recreate, emulate, or manufacture them (USPTO, 2006). More fundamentally, intellectual property is a claim to property; it is similar to ownership of physical property one has rights of entitlement and controls what happens to such property within legal parameters. Intellectual property differs from physical property by its term limits intellectual property is limited to a specific number of years, depending on the way one has protected ones invention, production, or authorship. According to the USPTO, there are four ways to protect intellectual property patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets (2006). Each form of intellectual property is purposed to protect a specific form of creation. In science, patents, trademarks, and trade

23 secrets apply most frequently. Raw scientific data or primary data in science are the material of scientific discovery and invention; these data have been generated through scientific investigation and experimentation (often funded by organizational or national agencies), and is regarded as the wellspring of scientific achievement. Data are scientifically raw as the producer, the scientist, has not published the findings and interpreted them within a theoretical or conceptual framework. Customarily, scientists can protect their data by patenting it. Patents on data occur most frequently in individual-investigator driven research such as chemistry or psychology. If patented, such data are granted protection like physical property. Once acquired, a patent (or trademark) grants a property right for the data to the inventor, discoverer, or scientist. This grant offers the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention (ibid). There is legal ownership and precedent to claim all rights to the property, though it is incumbent upon the patentee to enforce the patent, usually with the aid of legal counsel. There are three types of patents: utility patents, design patents, and plant patents. The utility patent is defined as any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof (ibid). It is the utility patent that applies to scientific and technological discovery or invention, in other words, raw data. Design patents relate to ornamental design for an article of manufacture (ibid), and plant patents relate to the reproduction of any distinct and new variety of plant (ibid). Information literacy in science requires an understanding of intellectual property as it pertains to science. The laws and conventions of patents relating to science have now

24 become not only arcane, but also rather murky. Over the last two decades, law relating to patents, particularly when government funding has supported investigation, has become subtle and unstable. In 1996, the Human Genome Project (HGP) adopted data release principles, preventing a scientist from acquiring a patent on his/her possible discovery in genome sequencing. The central principle states, "human genomic sequence information generated by centers funded for large-scale sequencing should be freely available and in the public domain...." This policy supports active research and development (R&D), but it is controversial. The potential for merit and collaborative work is enormous. However, while an open access depository, in other words data in the public domain, is desirable for large-scale scientific investigation and advancement, those who have produced valuable data, but have not finalized interpretation of the data, basically have no legal entitlement as producers of these data. There are no formal restrictions on its use no proprietary rights (Rowen, Wong, Lane, & Hood, 2000). All investigative findings, or primary data, deposited in GenBank, the Humane Genome Project database or depository, are available to the public as well as the scientific community without any rights of ownership. Similar conditions apply to several projects that would be classified as big science or megascience (Reichman & Uhlir, 2006). Such sciences use large research facilities with facility class instruments usually characterized as observational and experimental (ibid). A notable example of a large-scale observational investigation would be NASAs Apollo program. Examples of large observational facilities would include space science

25 satellites, earth observation satellites, and automated genome decoding machines. In the experimental sciences, examples of large-scale facilities include large lasers, high-field magnet labs, and supercolliders for high-energy particle physics. Scientific investigation in small, independent, investigator research differs in character from megascience endeavors. Sciences such as psychology, microbiology, anthropology, environmental science, or biodiversity do not require a large-scale facility. They are labor intensive, depend on replicable experiments with replicable findings, require relatively small samples that are collected individually, and produce small data sets that are analyzed individually and independently. In this labor-intensive situation, primary data are traditionally proprietary and rarely deposited in open access databases. Patented or not, independent, investigative research and data collected are tacitly proprietary. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is actively involved in setting policy or international rules and guidelines with regard to the exchange of scientific data, information, and knowledge (OECD, 2004). It is specifically addressing the establishment of access regulations for digital research data from public funding, and protecting intellectual property rights including trade secrets with international and national law. This involves creating new mechanisms and practices supporting international collaboration in access to digital research data (ibid). The National Research Council (NRC) has recognized the difficulty inherent in protecting the rights of those who create information products and services as well as those scientists contributing to open access depositories. The balance between maximizing access to digital information and protecting owners is viewed as a significant legal issue, with broad implications (NRC, 2000). Within this context, the federal government has

26 added an Information Sector (ibid) to the classification of industries. While the unprecedented production of and access to digital information enriches society, this enrichment can also be exploited, violating the rights of those who have contributed to scientific discovery or produced information of use. As stated in The Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the Information Age: The Web is an information resource of extraordinary size and depth, yet it is also an information reproduction and dissemination facility of great reach and capability; it is at once one of the worlds largest libraries and surely the worlds largest copying machine. Intellectual property law regarding projects that receive public funding and open access depositories is still an open issue. No explicit, clear-cut answers or legal recourse has been established to protect contributing scientists, though legislation, international lawmakers, and organizations are looking carefully at this dilemma and proposing solutions. Within the scientific community, tacit law and ethics govern those who would observe community. Nonetheless, should an imposter claim ownership, the tale would not be one of an idiot it would be a word to the wise. The dark lady of DNA, Rosalind Franklin, looms large when one speculates on the meaning of proprietary rights and scientific data.

27 References (AAMC). Medical school objectives project: medical infomatics objectives. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www.health.ufl.edu/iaims/planning/tf/education/informat.pdf (AAMC). (1998). Physicians must be dutiful. Report I: Learning Objectives for Medical School Education - Guidelines for Medical Schools. (AAMC). (1998,1998). Report II: Contemporary issues in medicine: medical informatics and population health. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www.aamc.org/meded/msop/msop2.pdf AAAS. Chapter 12: Habits of mind. In Science for all Americans. AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: project 2061 (1st ed. ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ACRL. (2000, October 21, 2005). Information literacy in the disciplines: medicine. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrlbucket/is/projectsacrl/infolitdisciplines/medicine.htm ACRL. (2002). ACRL information literacy. ACRL, & Committee. (2000, October 21, 2005). Information literacy in the disciplines. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrlbucket/is/projectsacrl/infolitdisciplines/index.htm Al Khalifa, R. (2007). Poorest States benefit least from globalizations advantages. Paper presented at the United Nations General Assembly 61st Session, New York. Al Khalifa, R. (2007). United Nations Ministerial Conference of the least developed countries "Making Globalization Work for LDCs". Paper presented at the UN General Assembly 61st Session, Istanbul. Allen, F. (2004). A nonlinear model of information-seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(3), 228-237. Allen, L. (1999). Info 520: Professional and Social Aspects of Information Services. Drexel University Course: Information Literacy in Higher Education, 1-9. Alexandersson, M. & Limberg, L. (2005). In the shade of the knowledge society and the importance of information literacy. Paper presented at the 11th Biennial Earli Conference, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus, August 23-27, 2005. [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/12-1/in_the_shade.html]

28 Andrews, J., Johnson, D., Case, D. O., Allard, S., & Kelly, K. (2005). Intention to seek information on cancer genetics [Electronic Version]. Information Research, 10 from [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper238.html]. APA. (2006). APA Guidelines for the undergraduate Psychology major. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Arnold, J., Kackley, R., & Fortune, S. (2003). Hands-on learning for freshman Engineering Students. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 1-7. Aronson-Rath, R. (Writer) (2007). News war: secrets, sources, and spin. In A. L. R. P. Frontline, Inc and UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism (Producer), News War: secrets, sources, and spin. USA: Frontline. Baldwin, V. (2004). The work and goals of the STS task force on information literacy for science and technology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska. Baldwin, V., Hanson, E., Lawal, I., MacAlpine, B., Nesdill, D., Wong, C. C. J. W., et al. (2004). Information literacy in the sciences task force. Bates, M. (1989). The design of browsing and berry picking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407-423. Bawden, D. (2002). The three worlds of health information. Journal of Information Science, 28(1), 51-62. Beauregard, K. S., & Dunning, D. (1998). Turning up the contrast: Self-enhancement motives prompt egocentric contrast effects in social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 606-621. Belkin, N. J. (1980). Anomalous States of Knowledge as a Basis for InformationRetrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science-Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L Information, 5(MAY), 133-143. Benson, D. A., Karsch-Mizrachi, I., Lipman, D. J., Ostell, J., & Wheeler, D. L. (2007). GenBank. Nucl. Acids Res., 35(suppl_1), D21-25. Breivik, P. (1991). Information literacy. Paper presented at the Ninetieth Meeting of the American Medical Association, Detroit, Michigan. Breivik, P. (1999). Take II -- Information literacy: revolution in education. Reference Services Review, 27(3), 271-275. Brown, C. (1999). Information Literacy of Physical Science Graduate Students in the Information Age. College and Research Libraries, 426-438.

29 Bruce, C. S. 1997. Seven faces of information literacy. AULSIB Press, Adelaide. Bruce, C. S. " Information Literacy as a Catalyst for Educational Change: A Background Paper," July 2002, White Paper prepared for UNESCO, the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and the National Forum on Information Literacy, for use at the Information Literacy Meeting of Experts, Prague, The Czech Republic. Available at: http://www.nclis.gov/libinter/infolitconf&meet/papers/bruce-fullpaper.pdf Bruce, C., Edwards, S., & Lupton, M. (2006). Six frames for information literacy education. Italics, 5(1). Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic Monthy. Campbell, S. (2004). Defining information literacy in the 21st century. Paper presented at the World Library and Information Conference: 70th IFLA General Conference and Council, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Carey, R., McKechnie, L., & MacKenzie, P. (2001). Gaining access to everyday life information seeking. Library and Information Science Research, 23, 319 - 334. Carol, L. B. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 149-159. Cline, R. J. W., & Haynes, K. M. (2001). Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ. Res., 16(6), 671-692. Cohen, M. (2003). "Aristotle's Metaphysics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved March 3, 2006, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2003/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/. Connor, E., ed. (2005). A guide to developing end user educational programs in medical libraries. New York: Haworth. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. D'Alessandro, D. M., Kingsley, P., & Johnson-West, J. (2001). The Readability of Pediatric Patient Education Materials on the World Wide Web. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 155(7), 807-812. Dean, C. (2005, August 30, 2005). Scientific Literacy? In U.S., Not Much. The New York Times. Delamothe, T. (2000). Quality of websites: kitemarking the west wind. BMJ, 321(7265), 843-844.

30

Diamond, J. (1999). Best invention; invention is the mother of necessity. New York Times. Dickson, D. (2005). The case for a 'deficit model' of science communication. Science and Development Network. Doyle, C. (1994). Information literacy in an information society: a concept for the information age: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse University. Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J. et al. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, APA. Oxford: Blackwell. Eisenberg, M. B and Berkowitz, R. E. 1990. Information Problem Solving, the Big Six Approach to Library and Information Skills Instruction. Norwood, NJ, Ablex. Eisenstein, E. (1979). The printing press as an agent of change. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioural approach to information retrieval system design. Journal of Documentation, 48(3), 171-212. Epley, N., & Dunning, D. (2000). Feeling "holier than thou": Are self-serving assessments produced by errors in self- or social prediction? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 861-875. Feynman, R. (1966). What is science? Paper presented at the National Science Teachers Association, New York. Fisher, K., Durrance, J., & Hinton, M. (2004). Information grounds and the use of needbased services by immigrants in Queens, New York: a context-based, outcome evaluation approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(8), 754-766. Fjallbrant, N., & Levy, P. (1999). Information literacy course in engineering and science: the design and implementation of the DEDICATE courses (Report). Chania, Greece: EU Fourth Framework Telematics for Libraries Program. Florance, V., & Guise, N. (2002). Information in context: integrating specialists into practice settings. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90(1), 49-58. Floridi, L. (2002) What is the Philosophy of Information? Metaphilosophy 33 (1&2), 123 145. Forrest, M., & Robb, M. (2000). The information needs of doctors-in-training: case study from the Cairns Library, University of Oxford. Health Libraries Review, 17(3),

31 129-135. Foster, A. (2004). A non-linear model of information seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(3), 228-237. Freeman, J. (2005). Towards a definition of holism. British Journal of General Practice, 55(511), 154-155. Fuchs, S. (1993). A sociological theory of scientific change. Social Forces, 71(4), 993 953. Gannon, J. (2000). The CIA in the new world order: Intelligence challenges through 2015 Retrieved. from https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speechestestimony/2000/dci_speech_020200smithson.html. Garvey, W. & Griffith, B. (1972). Communication and information processing within scientific disciplines - empirical findings for psychology. Information Storage and Retrieval, 8(3). Grafstein, A. (2002). A discipline-based approach to information literacy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(4), 197-204. Greely, H. T. (1998). Legal, ethical, and social issues in human genome research. Annual Review of Anthropology, 27(1), 473-502. Gross, M. (2001). Imposed information seeking in public libraries and school library media centres: a common behaviour? Information Research, 6(2). Gutierrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice? Educational Researcher, 32(6), 19 -25. Haga, S., & Willard, H. (2006). Defining the spectrum of genome policy. Nature, 7, 966 972. Hardesty, L. (1999). Reflections on 25 years of library instruction: have we made progress? Reference Services Review, 27(3), 242-246. Hazen, R. M., & Trefil, J. (1992). Science matters: achieving scientific literacy. New York: Anchor. HGP. (2007). Human Genome Project Information. Retrieved. from http://genomics.energy.gov/. HHS. (2005). Improving health literacy [Electronic Version] from http://www.nih.gov/icd/od/ocpl/resources/improvinghealthliteracy.htm#healthliteracy.

32 Hillestad, R., Bigelow, J., Bower, A., Girosi, F., Meili, R., Scoville, R., et al. (2005). Can Electronic Medical Record Systems Transform Health Care? Potential Health Benefits, Savings, And Costs. Health Aff, 24(5), 1103-1117. Hinman, R. (1998). Who is scientifically literate, anyway? (measures of scientific literacy). Phi Delta Kappan, 79(7), 540(544). Hodson, D. (2002). Some thoughts on scientific literacy: motives, meanings, and curriculum implications. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 3(1). Hodson, D. (2005). What is scientific literacy and why do we need it? The Morning Watch: Educational and Social Analysis, 33(1-2). Hunter, J. (2007). Health Telematics Unit. 2007, from http://www.fp.ucalgary.ca/telehealth/ Hurd, J. (2000). Transformation of scientific communication: A model for 2020 Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1279 - 1283. IFLANET. (2006). Guidelines for professional library information educational programs 2000. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www.ifla.org/VII/s23/bulletin/guidelines.htm Inarritu, A. (2006). Babel: A Film by Alejandro Gonzolez Inarritu. NY: Taschen. IOM. (1999). Healthy people 2010. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Medicine. ITU. (2007). World Information Society Report: Beyond WSIS Paper presented at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva. Jaworski, A., & Stephens, D. (1998). Self-reports on silence as a face-saving strategy by people with hearing impairment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 61-80. John, L. R. (2005). Inquiry, instrumentalism, and the public understanding of science. Science Education, 89(5), 803-821. Johnson, D. (2003). On contexts of information seeking. Information Processing and Management, 39, 735 - 760. Julie, M. H. (2000). The transformation of scientific communication: A model for 2020. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1279-1283. Keene, S. (1998). Digital collections: Museums and the information age (2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth Heineman.

33

Keltner, D., & Anderson, C. (2000). Saving Face for Darwin: The Functions and Uses of Embarrassment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(6), 187-192. Kickbusch, I. S. (2001). Health literacy: addressing the health and education divide. Health Promot. Int., 16(3), 289-297. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134. Kuhlthau, C. (1991). Inside the Information Search Process: information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-371. Kuhlthau, C. C. (2005). "Towards collaboration between information seeking and information retrieval." Information Research, 10(2) paper 225 [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-2/paper225.html] Kyung-Sun Kim, B. A. (2002). Cognitive and task influences on Web searching behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 109-119. Laherty, J. (2000). Promoting Information Literacy for Science Education Programs: Correlating the National Science Education Content Standards with the National Association of College and Research Information Competency Standards for Higher Education. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship(Fall). Leckie, G., & Fullerton, A. (1999). Information literacy in science and engineering undergraduate education: faculty practices and pedagogical practices. College and Research Libraries. Leckie, G., Pettigrew, K. (1996). Modeling the information seeking of professionals: a general model derived from research on engineers, health care workers, and lawyers. Library Quarterly, 66(2), 161-193. Leckie, Gloria J. and Karen Pettigrew. A general model of the information-seeking of professionals: role theory through the back door? Information Seeking in Context: Proceedings of an International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 14-16 August, 1996, Tampere, Finland. edited by P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen & B. Dervin. London: Taylor Graham. Lederman, L. (2003). Epilogue: obstacles on the road to universal science literacy. In S. Marshall (Ed.), Science literacy in the twenty-first century (pp. 305-310). NY: Prometheus.

34 Lederman, N. (2003). Scientific inquiry and nature of science as a meaningful context for learning in science. In S. Marshall (Ed.), Science literacy for the twenty-first century. NY: Prometheus. Lee, A. (2004). Thinking about social theory and philosophy for information systems. In L. Willcocks & J. Mingers (Eds.), Social theory and philosophy for information systems (pp. 1 - 26). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Lindstrom, J., & Shonrock, D. (2006). Faculty-Librarian collaboration to achieve integration of information literacy. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 46(1). Lipscomb, C. (2001). The library as laboratory. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 89(1), 79-80. Lloyd, A. (2005). Information literacy: Different contexts, different concepts, different truths? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 37(2), 82-88. MacKenzie, P. (2002). A model of information practices in accounts of everyday-life information seeking Journal of Documentation 59(1), 19 - 40. Maienschein, J., & Students. (1998). Scientific literacy. Science Magazine, 281(5379), 917. Marshall, S., Scheppler, J., & Palmisano, M. J. (2003). Science literacy for the twenty-first century. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. McCulley, C., & Hare, J. (2005). Science literacy: a collaborative approach. Academic Exchange Quarterly 9(12), 205-213. McDonald, J., & Dominguez, L. (2005). Moving from content knowledge to engagement. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(3), 18-23. McElreath, R., Boyd, R. & Richardson, P. (2003). Shared Norms and the Evolution of Ethnic Markers. Current Anthropology, 44(1), 122-129. Miller, J. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203-223. Myers, M. (1999). Investigating information systems with ethnographic research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 23(2), 2-20. NCES. (1999). Trends in international mathematics and science study: IES. NCES. (2003). National assessment of adult literacy. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). From the Cover: The structure of scientific collaboration

35 networks. PNAS, 98(2), 404-409. NRC. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. (2000). The digital dilemma: intellectual property in the Information Age. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NYSED. (2003). States' Impact on Federal Education Policy Project [Electronic Version]. New York State Archives from http://www.sifepp.nysed.gov/edindex.shtml. Osborne, H. (2005). Health literacy from A to Z: practical ways to communicate your health message. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett. Owusu-Ansah, E. K. (2003). Information literacy and the academic library: a critical look at a concept and the controversies surrounding it. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 29(4), 219-230. Owusu-Ansah, E. K. (2005). Debating definitions of information literacy: enough is enough! Library Review, 54(6), 366-374. Oxnam, M. (2003). The informed engineer. Paul, S. (2002). Discovering information in context. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36(1), 229-264. Peterson, C., & Kajiwara, S. (1999). Scientific literacy skills for non-science librarians: bootstrap training. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. Pettigrew, K., & McKechnie, L. (2001), The use of theory in information science research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(1):6273, 2001 Popli, R. (1999). Scientific literacy for all citizens: different concepts and contents. Public Understanding of Science, 8(2), 123-138. Reichman, J., & Uhlir, P. (2001). Promoting public good uses of scientific data: A contractually reconstructed commons for science and innovation. Paper presented at the Conference on the Public Domain, Duke Univerisity. Durham, North Carolina. Roberts, J. (2000) From Know-how to Show-how? Questioning the Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Knowledge Transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12:4, 429 - 443 Rowen, L., Wong, G. K. S., Lane, R. P., & Hood, L. (2000). Intellectual property:

36 Publication rights in the era of open data release policies. Science, 289(5486), 1881-. Ruth A. Palmquist, K.-S. K. (2000). Cognitive style and on-line database search experience as predictors of Web search performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(6), 558-566. Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ, 312(7023), 7172. Savolainen, R. (1995). Everyday life information seeking approaching information seeking in the context of 'way of life'. Library and Information Science Research, 17(3), 259-294. Schwartzberg, J., VanGeest, J., & Wang, C. (Eds.). (2005). Understanding health literacy: implications for medicine and public health. Washington, D.C.: AMA. Shukla, S. (2007). How to write a scientific paper. Indian Journal of Surgery 69(2), 1. Smith, E. M. (2003 ). Developing an Information skills curriculum for the sciences. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship(Spring). Souchek, R., & Meirer, M. (1997). Teaching information literacy and scientific process skills: an integrated approach. (Science and Math). College Teaching, 45(4), 128132. Spink, A., & Cole, C. (2004). A human information behavior approach to the philosophy of information. Library Trends, 52(3), 373380 Spink, A., & Cole, C. (2006). Human information behavior: integrating diverse approaches and information use. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(1):2535. Spink, A., & Currier, J. (in press). Towards an historical perspective on human information behavior. Journal of Documentation. O Sullivan, C. (2002). Is information literacy relevant in the real world? Reference Services Review, 30(1), 7-14. Sundin, O. (2000). Brief Communication. Qualitative research in health information user studies— a methodological comment. Health Libraries Review, 17(4), 215218. Susan Siegfried. (1993). A profile of end-user searching behavior by humanities scholars:

37 The Getty Online Searching Project Report No. 2. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44(5), 273-291. Taemin Kim, P. (1994). Toward a theory of user-based relevance: A call for a new paradigm of inquiry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 135-141. Talja, S., Keso, H., & Pietilainen, T. (1999). The production of context in information seeking research: A metatheoretical view. Information Processing & Management, 35, 751763. Tang, H., & Ng, J. H. K. (2006). Googling for a diagnosis--use of Google as a diagnostic aid: internet based study. BMJ, bmj.39003.640567.AE. Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York: Bantam. Trefil, J. (1996). The myth of scientific literacy. Issues in Science and Technology, 12(3), 84-89. UNCTAD. (2006). Promoting the building of a people-centred, development-oriented, and inclusive information society, with a view to enhancing the digital opportunities for all people. Retrieved. from http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Meeting.asp?intItemID=2068&lang=1&m=1223 3&year=2006&month=1. Vakkari, P. (2001). A theory of the task-based information retrieval process: a summary and generalization of a longitudinal study. Journal of Documentation, 57(1), 44-60 Vakkari, P. (2003). Task-based information searching. In B. Cronin (ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 2003, vol. 37 (pp. 413-464). Medford, NJ. Van Boven, L., Dunning, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). Egocentric empathy gaps between owners and buyers: Misperceptions of the endowment effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 66-76. Walther, J. H., & Speisser, N. (1997). Developing and delivering medical reference source instruction in a special library. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship (Fall). Wai-yi Cheuk, B. (1998). Modelling the information-seeking and use process in the workplace. [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/4-2/isic/cheuk.html]. Webber, S., & Johnston, B. (2000). Conceptions of information literacy: new perspectives and implications. Journal of Information Science, 26(6), 381-397. WHO. (1996;2003). Health promotion: an anthology (Vol. 557). Washington, D.C.: Pan

38 American Health Organization. Wikipedia. (2006). Richard Saul Wurman: Wikipedia, The Free Encylopedia. Williamson, D., Katz, I., & Kirsch, D. (2002). An overview of the Higher Education ICT Literacy Assessment. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. Wilson, T. D. (2000). Human Information Behavior. Informing Science, 3(2), 1-7. Wilson, T. D. (2003). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249 - 270. Wilson, T. D. (2006). On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation, 6, 658 - 670. Wood, F., Ford, N., Miller, D., Sobczyk, G., & Duffin, R. (1996). Information skills, searching behaviour and cognitive styles for student-centred learning: a computerassisted learning approach. Journal of Information Science, 22(2), 79-92. Wudka, J. (1998). The Scientific Method: University of California, Riverside. Wurman, R. (1989). Information Anxiety. New York: Doubleday. Zarcadoolas, C., Pleasant, A., & Greer, D. S. (2005). Understanding health literacy: an expanded model. Health Promot. Int., 20(2), 195-203.