For decades, we've talked in Mexico about science and technology. The most recent reform to the relevant law transformed the two-word moniker into a three-word term, adding to the salad the component called innovation. Thus, if the budget won't grow, at least names get to be larger.

But let's get to the point. It's clear that at the country level, society at large is disconnected from science, doesn't have a clue about what it is, does or produces in its behalf, and this void (the formal word would be, I think, deficit) translates into a clear and precise objective: we have to find a way to cover that hole.

It's a positive and laudable idea. It was taken by the Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico (FCCyT), lead by Juan Pedro Laclette, and the Sociedad Mexicana para la Divulgación de la Ciencia y la Técnica (Somedicyt), headed by Estrella Burgos, who together summoned a seminar: "La ciencia, la tecnología y la innovación como noticias: los retos de la comunicación pública" ("Science, technology and innovation as news: the challenges of public communication"; you can download the program here).

The venue was Las Brisas hotel, one of Acapulco's finest places, known from long ago because of its pink and white stripes. There, between heat and palm trees, 180 people got together for a whole day and tried to reach the objective expressed thus in the invitation letter: "To identify and propose mass communication mechanisms through which society can be informed about the benefits science has put within reach and can also take hold of knowledge".

The day was made up of three working sessions and a workshop (as much a workshop you can get having a hundred and fifty people in the same room), and, as was to be expected, time lagged and lagged until breaks were simply cancelled. So it was a long day, and it is difficult to summarize the many ideas that one speaker afther the other got out from our chests to propose and to suggest and to commend. I won't talk about all of them, because I had to go out of the room several times and also because some messages were really repetitive; besides, this is a truly personal tale, so please bear with me.

After an introductory session where the overview and expectations were put on the table, we had a keynote session by Pere Estupinyá, a Spanish journalist that among other things writes the blog Apuntes desde el MIT and writes also the spanish version of the Knight Science Journalism Tracker, a blog that comments science stories.

The first session, "Los problemas de la comunicación pública en ciencia, tecnología e innovación, y sus posibles soluciones" ("The issues with public communication of science, technology and innovation, and their possible solutions"), had as speakers Julieta Fierro (UNAM), Julia Tagüeña (UNAM), José de la Herrán (UNAM) and René Anaya (Siempre! magazine), moderated by José Ramón Hernández.

I highlight from that round the passion shown by Julieta Fierro, a passion that certainly goes beyond astronomy. She, among a thous always aware of the fact that science populariozation is not something you improvise on, is something that requires a  good deal of sweat. Hooray, Julieta!

Julia Tagüeña made a clean dissection of the field and ended her presentation with a series of very specific ideas: to strengthen the Somedicyt (with a membership campagin, with a chapter for students, with more presence in specific areas), to add into the FCCyT's mission a mention of communication targets, and that Somedicyt and FCCyT together make a census of science journalists and pack them together in some sort of professional network.

José de la Herrán used a published archival story about the Apollo XII mission to the Moon, and pointes that in just a couple of pages of a magazine there were over half a dozen major mistakes. Hence his proposals were also stark and concrete: that editorial boards be more than just a list of names and participate in a publication's processes, and that science articles go through at least a subject expert to have a first filter and avoit the most embarassing mistakes.

In the second session, "Propuestas para mejorar la percepción social: La CTI como noticia" ("Proposals to improve social perception: science, technology and innovation as news"), we heard mainly multimedia producers: they were José Gordon (Channel 22), Teodoro Rentería, Elia Sánchez (RRTECM) and Fernando Fuentes (Radio 620), moderated by José Cartas Orozco.

José Gordon was the session's best, because he not only mixed in a very attractive manner literature and science, he not only invited everybody to entice people using fascination to lure them to sciences, but also presented several video clips superbly produced. I recall from his speech the need to have a deep respect for the interviewee and these words: "Art and science are a fundamental part of our culture, mechanisms to connect, to share that which we sometimes don't see".

Teodoro Rentería said something I didn't know: concession titles for radio and television include an obligation to communicate science and propagate art. This would mean being able to devote, theoretically at least, 90 minutes a day broadcasting the subject.

Elia Sánchez, who offered the spaces of the Red de Radiodifusoras y Televisoras Educativas y Culturales de México to communicate science, formulated several suggestions so general that they don't merit more mention.

After lunch, it was my turn to participate in the third session, "Hacia la construcción de una Red Nacional de Periodistas en Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación y un Plan Nacional de Divulgación en CTI" ("Towards a National Network of Science, Technology and Innovation Journalists and a National Strategy to Communicate Science, Technology and Innovation", whew!). Besides me, the speakers were Jenaro Villamil (La Jornada), Adalberto Villasana (La Prensa) and Martín Bonfil (UNAM). The moderator was Rigoberto Aranda, from the President's Science Council.

I can say little about this session because I was at the front, but besides the presentation of science content in La Jornada and La Prensa, the practical ideas were presented by Martín Bonfil, who invited us to form a network and to build a strategy without much ado, so as not to boggle the issue with arguments.

I'll include in a future post my own speech, whose purpose was to scare everybody about the immediate future. I'll just say that I was the last speaker, so I had a fatigued audience, and that instead of speaking for 15 minutes I, ahem, spoke at length. Please excuse me, I tend to be carried away by enthusiasm.

The day went on with a summary of the ideas and proposals heard along the way. They were presented and commented by Estrella Burgos and Juan Pedro Laclette. I quote a few:

• That research institutes create communication offices
• That they invite journalists in a regular fashion
• That science communication be included as a mandatory subject in college
• That journalists organize into their own network or as a Somedicyt chapter
• That the Somedicyt gets to have presence within the FCCyT
• That we work to have a directory that lists all science journalists and writers
• That journalist knock at radio networks' doors to seek air space
• That all conversations in the seminar be propagated
• That the guild builds a network/association/group

The last part of the day, very interesting, included a kind of workshop. Three speakers were invited to present their stories in 15 minutes or less, and then some journalists were allowed to question them. At the end, three science writers (Estrella Burgos, Martín Bonfil and Javier Crúz) made comments or pointed details in the benefit of both journalists and experts.

Among the speakers, the first was deputy Florentino Cruz, who heads the Science and Technology Comission in the Congress of the state of Guerrero, and who talked about how they expect to face budget cuts that they'll receive, cuts that mainly affect science and culture.

Alfonso Serrano delighted everyone describing in a flash and almost without breathing a thousand details about the Gran Telescopio Milimétrico, a made in Mexico project in which nobody believed. Doctor Serrano said the main obstacle was not getting funded nor designing such a sophisticated instrument, but overcoming their own sense of defeat.

Rafael Navarro spoke about his participation, with space agency NASA, in a theoretical project to terraform Mars, and about how the specific conditions of Pico de Orizaba (a dormant volcano in the state of Veracruz) are just fine to experiment (it's the world's highest forested peak).

After this long recount, what can I say about the seminar? Well, let's hear it clear and to the point:

1. The crucial part: the event got together people that despite working in the same subject see each other very little. This allowed for some personal commitments to be made, because I think institutional progress will frankly advance at a colonial rhythm: "En palacio, despacio" ("Within the palace, things move slooooow").
2. The audience was formed, grosso modo, by: people who enjoyed the trip and barely understood the official purposes; people filled with good intentions but so institutional they'll wait for institutions to act; people pragmatic enough to be somewhat cynical about what might happen after. And so on.
3. Proposals pointed in the sessions varied from the practical and immediate to the dreamy and almost impossible. It was a nice exercise in discourse exchange, and only the upcoming events or facts will tell if ideas get turned into actions. Mi perspective: as before, whatever gets done will come more from individual struggles than from collective consensus.

And to close, personally I feel I won a lot with this seminar. One, because I had the occasion to listen directly the speeches of several very lucid and articulate people fighting the same fights I've pursued for years with more enthusiasm than order. Two, because I renewed some relationships with some of the best highly driven science journalists and writers in Mexico, some of whom I met three years ago in Morelia. Three, because I reached two or three collaboration and exchange commitments with specific persons. Four, because despite the heat, I had a very good time.