Charles Zalabak describes his career working for NASA as a research scientist, including various assignments involving data analysis, equipment design, and report writing. He notes that while researchers aimed to present findings honestly, communication failures have contributed to problems like space mission failures and environmental pollution from industrial and scientific applications. Zalabak argues that students of communication should help establish ways to convey the full context and limitations of technical information to prevent future abuses and guide scientists in better communication.

1. y Charles Zalabak*
Graduating with a bachelor’s degree in engineering physics
(communication requirement: one semester of public speaking)
I went to work for the National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics (NACA) as a research scientist. When the NACA
became a part of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration NASA), I was more concerned with product
development. The working conditions were very good by my
evaluations. Resources were adequate (a researcher will almost
always claim a better job could be done with more money and
what it can buy in simulations, manpower, supplies, and time),
the environment was stimulating (exciting fields of inquiry,
capable and generally compatible people), and a review process
by which the research projects were maintained was consistent
with needs.
To examine the process of communication as I experienced it at
NASA, let me describe several assignments and leave the details
of communication analysis to the student and to those better
qualified than I.
As a new employee just out of school, one might expect to do
menial tasks, of course. One of my first assignments in the
research environment was the plotting of curves, whereby it is
possible to deduce a mathematical relationship or to check how
closely the experimental data fit the theoretical curve. Today,
of course, electronic curve plotters eliminate the tedium, except
as it applies to the programmer. Whether an assignment is
individually completed or performed with sophisticated
technology, the scientist is concerned with determining what are
meaningful data. What should be accepted and what should be
rejected? How accurate are the standards we use for judgment?
I have frequently asked myself the questions: What about data
that were rejected on the basis of such situations as instrument

2. error or nonstable set point? Were some of those data also
meaningful? If so, what was the impact of discarding those
data?
As in most research environments, we were constrained in
design by a variety of limitations. I was assigned to create
mechanical designs to convey concepts, materials, and
dimensions for needed equipment such as a furnace capable of
high-temperature materials testing. Did the need for limitations
provide equipment (and resulting data) that could be misused by
persons not fully understanding the limitations?
Report writing—formal communication—was the culmination of
a research effort. After progress and findings had been
reviewed by supervisors and agreement had been obtained that
the results merited distribution, a draft report was prepared for
supervisor approval. Corrections made, the report was
submitted to an editorial committee that included a checker
(responsible for accuracy of formulas, calculations, and
references), a co-worker or two (not directly on the project),
and a person attempting to ensure the report would be
comprehensible to technical persons not in the same specialty
area (described as a mean intelligence). The author of the
report could expect sessions with the editorial committee to be
lengthy and somewhat combative. Following additional
corrections/approvals, the grammarians made their
recommendations. Final corrections, duplication, distribution,
and cataloguing were the responsibilities of the author(s).
Communicating the results was part of the research assignment.
The communication examples, questions, and concerns I have
described were basic to most of my assignments. Additionally,
technical reviews as presenter or participant were common at
various levels in both group and interpersonal settings. Again,
the responsibility to examine and critique was as much a part of
the job as actual manipulation of data.

3. Throughout, I found an honest, ethical relationship pervasive
among people, a sincere attempt to present findings with full
disclosure of the limitations. And yet, we have witnessed a
space-mission failure resulting in death. And digressing to
other areas of science, we remember Nobel felt compelled to
fund a commemoration of peace efforts because his discovery of
dynamite was so devastating. We note the pollution of air,
water, and land due to accidents arising from nuclear fission
and the potential pollution from fission residues that require
disposal. Disposal of toxins from manufacturing processes
poses increasing problems, as does the use of toxins by
inadequately informed people. The list can be continued.
However, the point is that in each case the initial product was to
improve the lot of the human race—from dynamite as a source
of concentrated energy to pesticides that improve agricultural
productivity and facilitate distribution.
So what about communication (besides the fact that a lack of
communication contributed to the above-cited problems)? I see
work being done to advance the discipline. As cause and effect
become better defined, the potential for abuses grows. Can the
student of communication help establish a course of action to
forestall these abuses, as well as guide the technical community
so they may better convey the totality of information?
1. How does Zalabak see human communication influencing
scientific progress?
2. Can you identify other examples of scientific problems
related to human communication?
3. How should scientists be trained in human communication?