In
the late 1970s, I founded and edited 3 publications for the Philippine Forest Research Institute,
FORI: the monthly semi-technical newsletter Canopy,
quarterly research journal Sylvatrop, and
the quarterly popular color magazine Habitat,
which I patterned after the American National
Geographic. In the early 2000s, I became Editor in Chief of the Philippine Journal of Crop Science, PJCS,
which was based in UP Los Baños in Laguna. With Professor Ted Mendoza as
technical overseer, from being late 3 years in issues, the PJCS we made in 3
years up-to-date; the next year, made it worthy of ISI, the Good Housekeeping seal of approval of international tech
magazines. So: 1 institution and 4 publications we made famous – but not the scientists featured in those pages.
So
I'm surprised with the claim about Juliana Chan, Editor-in-Chief of Asian Scientist Magazine of surging
Singapore, that she has been making
famous Asian scientists since 10
years ago; and Frank A Hilario, Editor in Chief of quite a few publications of
my archetypal archipelago Philippines, and a relentless blogger, I have only
been making known some Filipino
scientists since 43 years ago.
It's
the language.
So,
this essay turns out to be a little study of English, foreign to both Filipinos and Singaporeans. Especially
with social media available today, it should be obvious that making famous is qualitatively different
from making known.
American Heritage Dictionary (thefreedictionary.com) says
the synonyms for the word "famous" are: "celebrated, eminent,
famed, illustrious, notable, noted, preeminent, renowned." It also says:
"These adjectives mean widely known and esteemed." So, it's clear: widely known (popular) is different from
widely known and esteemed (famous).
The institution
FORI became popular here and abroad
because of my writing and editing, and so did the scientists featured in those
publications – not necessarily became famous.
The same is true with the scientists published in the PJCS when I was Editor in
Chief.
So,
I'm surprised that I keep seeing this video on Facebook (source of above image)
with the title "The Impossible Shift: Juliana Chan." The link leads
to http://bitly/impossiblestories.
As Singapore's Economic Development Board, EDB, puts it: "Juliana is
shifting perceptions about Asian research by championing the stories of
scientists from all over the region." Miss Juliana is the Editor in Chief
of Asian Scientist Magazine based in
Singapore. She says: "There (were) many good scientists in Asia and
Singapore. But nobody was writing about them."
Now,
is the common claim of Singapore EDB and Miss Juliana correct? This is for them:
It's the language. Miss Juliana, I'm sure
you are a super science journalist. But, among other things in the singular claim,
there is a whale of a difference between making popular and making famous.
I'm not remotely as successful as you, Miss
Juliana, but I do know that it's people who make themselves famous; journalists can only make them popular. If journalists glorify them, they must be
worthy. No, being worthy is not given by an earnest journalist – it is a gift
by an earnest scientist himself to the world. @
Comments
Post a Comment