College and Research Libraries Research Notes Bibliographic Instructors in the Sciences: A Profile Joy Thomas Responses of 100 librarians to a questionnaire revealed a profile of the educational background and attitudes of science librarians involved in bibliographic instruction. A follow-up survey explored the degree to which library school cur- ricula prepare librarians for bibliographic in- struction. Several years ago the University Library of California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), experienced an apparent short- age of science-educated librarians simulta- neous with a need to introduce hundreds of science majors each semester to library research. New librarians without science backgrounds, of whom I was one, were assigned to what was then the science and technology department. While some had academic library experience, bibliographic lecturing was a new and unnerving duty. Neither education nor experience had pre- pared these librarians to deal with what was perceived as the exotic, highly techni- calliterature of the sciences. The only ori- entation for most had been a dimly re- membered course in science bibliography in library school. 1 Later, as CSULB's li- brary instruction coordinator, I undertook a statewide survey of science librarians in- volved in bibliographic instruction in an effort to determine how training for librar- ians to give instruction had been accom- plished at other libraries. The results did not solve our dilemma, but did reveal an interesting profile of bibliographic instruc- tion librarians. Librarian response to the questionnaire precipitated an additional, albeit brief, survey of library school educa- tion in bibliographic instruction tech- niques. The literature, though rife with ar- ticles on familiarizing students with the bibliography of a specific discipline, lacked information on exactly how librari- ans are trained to render bibliographic in- struction, especially in unfamiliar fields. METHODOLOGY Purpose Some of the survey goals were similar to those previously reported by Barbara Smith; others were more qualitative. 2 My purposes were: 1. To determine whether other institu- Joy Thomas is a member of the library faculty at California State University, Long Beach, California 90840. 252 tions had trained their science librarians in bibliographi<;: instruction techniques in a more systematic way than had CSULB. 2. To determine by what means, in ad- dition to formal training, librarians had developed instructional skills. 3. To determine whether other institu- tions limited scientific bibliographic in- struction to librarians with an appropriate educational background. 4. To determine whether enjoyment of bibliographic instruction in the sciences was influenced by possession of an educa- tional background in the sciences and/ or specialized training in bibliographic in- struction skills. 5. To determine the degree to which li- brary school curricula have prepared and are currently preparing information pro- fessionals to meet the challenge of in- structing library users. The Sample A preliminary version of the survey was pretested on all seventeen of my col- leagues who participated in bibliographic instruction at the time. Their responses and comments helped clarify some ques- tions. They were not surveyed further, nor were they included in the final results. See figure 1 for survey instrument and raw responses. Surveys, along with self-addressed stamped envelopes, were mailed to 144 California science librarians believed to be engaged in bibliographic instruction. The basis of this sample was a directory of sci- ence librarians compiled by an officer of SEAL (Science & Engineering Academic Librarians), an interest group of CARL (California Academic & Research Librari- ans, an ACRL chapter). 3 Individuals in this directory were indexed not only by name and institution but also by job re- sponsibilities. Twelve questionnaires were returned with only the first box checked, indicating that the respondent was not involved in bibliographic instruc- tion. Excluding these 12, a 77.7% response rate was attained, with exactly 100 com- pleted questionnaires returned. Results Academic librarians (two- and four-year Research Notes 253 schools) accounted for 98 of the respon- dents. Of these, 57 had been librarians for ten years or more; and 43 had a bachelor's, master's and/ or a doctorate in a scientific ' or technical discipline. Given CSULB's earlier difficulty in recruiting science li- brarians, this high percentage was sur- prising. The survey showed that most (n = 37) of the librarians giving bibliographic instruction in biology, medicine, chemis- try, or engineering had a degree in a scien- tific discipline. Enjoyment level was high. On a five- point scale, the majority of librarians giv- ing bibliographic instruction in each disci- pline rated their enjoyment 1 or 2. In the sciences, the percentages varied from all four of the librarians giving instruction in astronomy (100%) to 65% of those giving instruction in unspecified scientific fields. Though the numbers are too small to draw conclusions, respondents expressed a high degree of satisfaction even in the nonscientific fields: 100% of the science li- brarians giving instruction in applied arts and in fine arts rated their enjoyment 1 or 2. The least enjoyed nonscience field was "Other," with only 62.5% rating their en- joyment 1 or 2. Table 1 shows responses and enjoyment level for each discipline questioned. ''Nearly half of the respondents gave library use instruction only in disci- plines in which they themselves had had course work.'' The instruction given by a majority of re- spondents (n = 57) was limited to scien- tific fields. The most often taught non- science ·bibliographic instruction subjects were in the social sciences, but this in- volved less than a quarter of those com- pleting the questionnaire. Contrary to CSULB's expectations at the time, nearly half of the respondents gave library use in- struction only in disciplines in which they themselves had had course work. Slightly more than half of the respondents gave in- struction in an average of four courses in which they had not had formal education. ~--------------------------------~------------------------------~---- - 254 College & Research Libraries May 1988 Dear Colleague: I would lIke to develop a profIle of l fbrarians who give bfbl fographfc instruction in science and technology and would appreciate a few •iB.Jtes of your tl• to coaplete this questionnaire. I recognize that reference. work fa a fon1 of bibl fographfc Instruction, but "'f present Interest fa In .ore for.al Instructional efforts. Please return In the enclosed sel f·eddressed, postage· paid envelope. Thank you. Joy Thoms Cal ffornfa State University, Long Beach If bfbl fographfc Instruction Is not one of your responsfbil ttfes, please check here _ and return the questionnaire. If it is, please continue. 1. How long have you been a librarian? less than 3 years = 3; 3-9 years = 39; 10+ 57 2. If you have had another career, please specify: 33 (27 in some form of education) 3. Excluding your library degree, what Is your educational background? ~ BA/BS in scientific or technical field 16 scientific or technical field _MAIMS In-------'---- ~doctorate In (3 in sci or tech) _7_ certificate In (4 in educational field) 4. In what type library are you presently eaployed? 89 college/university ....!_ comunlty college _!_ special 2 public ~ other 5. Approxi•tely what percentage of time do you spend on bibliographic Instruction, including preparation? 48 less that 10X 44 10·251 ~ 25·50X 0 51-'751 ,_!_ over 751 6. In what areas of science and technology do you give bibl lographic Instruction? _!!_ utronoiiiY ~biology 1!., chalstry .!.Q_ c~ter studies ~ engineering ....!2. geology 10 •thea~atlca 39 lllediclne 13 •lcrobiology I oceanography --g- physics 4r other 7. If you give bibliographic Instruction fn other dfaclplfnes, which ones? !..._ appl fed arts ~ business ~ education 7 ffne arts ~ h~ftfes 2! social & behavioral sciences 16 other ____ _ 8. If you give bibliographic Instruction In disciplines fn which you yourself have not had couraework, please list the dfsclpl fnes. average = 2 48 answered zero Over, please 94 answered 5 or less . 11 answered 2 2 answered 10+ FIGURE 1 Bibliographic Instruction in Library Schools Questionnaire Sample Research Notes 255 9. How did you learn to give bibliographic instruction? Check all that apply • ~library school .!.!:._ on-the- job training (including in-house workshops) 2.:._ national, state, or regional workshop ...::_observation 2.:_ trial-and-error ~ other ---------------------- 10. If you have had training or experience as a teacher, did it help you in bibl io- graphic instruction? ~yes no ~not applicable 11. How long have you been giving bibliographic instruction? less than 3 yrs = 6 ; 3 1 - 0 9 + yrs yrs 12. Celq)Bred to your other duties, what is your attitude about siving bibliographic instruction? Strong preference Strong aversion 31 5 0 13. What is your opinion about the value of bibliographic instruction to students? Valuable 1 57 2 29 4 4 Worthless 5 0 14. Please characterize the bibliographic instruction program with which you are involved. Check all that apply • .!...!;_ one-time lectures initiated by library ~ one-time lectures requested by professor ~ quarter or semester courses ~ courses shorter than the quarter or the semester ~ other (please specify) ------------------- Please use the space below for conments. 22 respondents· commented Thank you for your time. Please return by June 30, 1985, in the enclosed self- addressed, postage-paid envelope. FIGURE 1 Continued 62; 29 256 College & Research Libraries May 1988 TABLE 1 BIBLIOGRAPHIC INSTRUCTION BY FIELD-RAW RESPONSES WITH PERCENTAGE INDICATING SATISFACTION LEVELS OF 1 OR 2 Astronomy 4 (100) Biology 48 (77) Chermstry 26 (73) Computer Studies 10 (90) Engineering 25 (84) Geology 15 (73) Mathematics 10 (70) Medicine 39 (76.9) Microbiolo~ 13 (76.9) Oceanograp y 7 (85.7) By far the most common methods by which respondents were trained for bib- liographic instruction (question 9) were trial and error and on-the-job training (71 and 70 responses, respectively). Stabler's recent study indicated that most newly ' hired reference librarians believe their on- the-job-training, including training for bibliographic instruction, was inade- quate; but 69.9% of my respondents who got on-the-job-training rated their enjoy- ment of giving instruction 1 or 2. 4 Satisfac- tion level by type of training is shown in table 2. All 57 respondents with ten or more years of experience indicated that they had received more than one method of training. Most frequently cited by these respondents were trial and error (77.2%; n = 44) and on-the-job training (63.1%; n = 36). Library school had not instilled instruc- . tional skills in these librarians. Of the eight librarians who had some library school course work in bibliographic in- struction, half had been in the field less than a decade; but library use instruction was simply not a part of the curriculum when most respondents would have been attending library school, an experience which paralleled mine and that of my col- leagues. 5 However, even those few with some library school exposure supple- mented it with other training methods. Of those eight respondents who had had some library school training in biblio- graphic instruction, six reported that they had been given oil-the-job training, arid five had observed bibliographic instruc- tion. Three librarians indicated that they had availed themselves of opportunities provided by library school, on-the-job Phhsics 8 (75) Ot er Science 43 (65) Applied Arts 6 (100) Humanities 14 (85) Business 10 (90) Social & Behavioral 23 (86.9) Education 9 (77.7) Fine Arts 7 (100) Other 16 (62.5) training and observation, but still found themselves engaged in trial and error. My findings paralleled Galloway's; most of her respondents in 1975 had previous teaching experience. 6 A large minority of respondents (n = 44) had training or ex- perience as teachers; all but one found this helpful. LIBRARY SCHOOLS In 1976, Sue Galloway criticized the ab- sence of library instruction courses at li- brary schools; in 1982, Marilyn Lutzker recommended that this ongoing lack be remedied; and in 1983, Howarth and Ken- ney's syllabi project found that biblio- graphic instruction was at least a portion of a course in thirty-three library schools. 7 They did not specify how many schools offered a separate course in bibliographic instruction . Two years later, there is evidence that a modicum of bibliographic instruction training is offered by library schools. Hav- ing discovered from long-term practitio- ners in the field that their library school training had not included bibliographic in- struction, I sent letters to sixty ALA- accredited library schools in the United States and Canada to find out if the situa- tion had changed. Most (n = 48; 80%) re- sponded. Even though I had not re- quested them, many included catalogs, course descriptions, and/or syllabi. I asked general, factual questions, less de- tailed and much less quantifiable than those asked by Maureen Pastine and Ka- ren Seibert in their study. 8 Did the school teach bibliographic instructional method- s/techniques? In the context of what class(es)? For how long had they been do- Research Notes 257 TABLE2 SATISFACTION LEVELS OF RESPONDENTS BY TYPE OF TRAINING RECEIVED Satisfaction Level Library school Type of On-the-job training Training Workshops Receivea: Observation Trial and error Other ing this? Responses are summarized in figure 2 and seem to indicate a rosier pic- ture than Robert Brundin found in 1985.9 Techniques or theories of library use in- struction are gradually finding a place in curricula. All except one of the forty-eight responding library schools offer at least a few hours of discussion (indicated in fig- ure 2 as "portion"), most in the context of a reference course. Only three schools mentioned teaching bibliographic instruc- tion as part of subject bibliography courses. Fifteen teach an entire course de- voted exclusively to library use instruc- tion, although many of those bewailed low enrollment or infrequent offering. In all cases, this course was elective. Five schools had internships or teaching assist- antships available to a few students (indi- cated in figure 2 as "Other"). One school said that it placed less emphasis on library use instruction now than in the heyday of the early 1970s. "Since bibliographic instruction has been established long enough to lose the aura of trendiness, it is distress- ing that many library school pro- grams continue to give the field short shrift." Library School Cu"icula: Preparing Librarians to Teach? The value of teaching bibliographic in- struction skills and the point at which they should be taught has long been argued. 10 But since even a cursory examination of advertisements for public service ( espe- · dally academic) librarians shows the de- sirability of instructional experience, and 1 21 14 16 20 10 2 3 4 4 2 1 0 30 14 5 0 15 5 3 0 22 10 5 0 30 15 4 0 9 5 0 0 since bibliographic instruction has been established long enough to lose the aura of trendiness, it is distressing that many li- brary school programs continue to give the field short shrift. Several schools pro- vided enough details of their curricula to indicate that user instruction is passed over in only a few hours of a larger course, usually beginning reference. Several re- marked that since students did not realize the importance that bibliographic instruc- tion would have in their careers, elective courses were plagued by lack of enroll- ment or had lapsed for that reason. No one seemed to connect unenthusiastic stu- dent reception with lack of encourage- ment by counselors or faculty, which I suspect may be an element. One school of- ficial commented that bibliographic in- struction was more properly taught on the job. On the more positive side, another re- sponse suggested that since practicing li- brarians recognized the value of biblio- graphic instruction while students didn't, the school was contemplating a series of short-term courses for the experienced li- brarian. ATTITUDES Science librarians responding to the main survey had positive attitudes about · bibliographic instruction and its value to students. Nearly three-quarters checked either 1 or 2 on a five-point scale indicating their preference for bibliographic instruc- tion when compared to their other duties; no one indicated a strong aversion. A slightly smaller percentage of the respon- dents with an educational background in a scientific field found instruction profes- sionally satisfying: 29 of the 43 (67.4%) rated their satisfaction as 1 or 2 on a five- point scale. Likewise, a strong majority (n = 86) indicated that bibliographic instruc- 258 College & Research Libraries EntIre/port I on Brlghe• Young Unlvenlty portion• other Cethol lc Unlver1fty of A•erlce portion Cl1rlon portion• ColUIIble Unfvenfty portion• Delhou1le Untvenlty entire Drexel entire E~r·l• State Unlvenfty portion• Florlde Stete Unlvenfty entire lndlene Unlvenfty portion Long l1lend Unlvenlty portion• Loul1lene Stete Unlvenfty entire McGill Unlvenlty portion Northern llllnol1 Unlvenlty portion• Prett lnatftute entire portion Queena College portion• Rol!ry College portion• Rutgen Unlven I ty entire portion May1988 1) Refer~nce Theory & Servl ce1 2) Advenced Reference 3) 1 t11fltent1hlp lnforutlon Source• & ·service• 1) Online ilblfogrephlc Detebe1e1 2) Speclel Llbrerfe• 3) ScIence L ftereture 4) ACide•lc & Re1eerch Llbrerle1 Blbl logrephlc In•tructlon U1tr Education Progr••• 1) Educettonel Function• of 1985 1986 1978 1984 1983 1982 . Librerlel & lnfor•etton Agencf!l 1983 2) Appllcetlona of Ca..unlcetlon Theory 1) lnatructlonel ·servlcea of 1982 lnfor .. tlon Profelllonela 2) Advenced Reference lnfor•etlon Source• & Servlc!l •ecede•l c ll brery cour1e1• s .. lner In Blbl logrephlc College end Unlvenlty Llbrerl!l •reference end reaource cour1ea• 1) Llbrery U1e lnatructlon 2) Funde .. ntela of lnfor .. tlon Hendllng 1) •bt~ I c reference• 2) ••oclel 1clence reference• 1) •I ntroductory reference end blbl logrephy• 2) •eced .. lc l lbrerlt~• 1) Prof!lalonel Develop~~ent 2) •eced .. tc l lbrerlt~• FIGURE2 Inception 1985 1982, 1987 1950'• 81970 Responses to Bibliographic Instruction in Library Schools Questionnaire St. John'• University San Jose State University Shnona College s. Connecticut State Unlv. State U. of New York, Buffalo Texas Women•• University University of Alaba•a University of Alberta University of Arizona University of British Columbia U. of California, Berkeley U. of California, Loa Angeles portions entire portions entire portion entire portions portions portions portion portions portions entire other Research Notes 259 1> •Introductory• 2> •science bibliography• 3) •social science bibliography• 4) •huunltlea bibliography 5) •advanced reference• 6> •Internship• Library .& lnfor .. tlon Research Instruction 1 > •basi c reference• 2> Bibliographic Instruction & Methods 1 > Library Instruction 2) Advanced Reference Bibliographic Instruction 1) •acade•lc libraries• 2) lnfor .. tlon Sources & Services 3) Educating for Llbrarlanahlp 4) Health Science Libraries bibliographic lnitructlon aaahtantahlpa 1) Library Material & lnfor11atlon Services 2) Adv.nced lnfor•atlon Services 3) Acade•lc Libraries 4> practlcu. 1) Reference 2) Public Libraries 3) Acade•lc Libraries •advanced reference• 1) Introduction to lnfor•atlon 2) Advanced Reference 3) Health Sciences 4) Law 5) Internship 1) lnfor .. tlon Resources & Sarvlceal 2) Internship I 3) Training & Supervision of I Teaching Aaalatanta 4) teaching aaalatantahlpa I I late 1970'• 1987 19827 1976 81978 1981 19757 1976 ----------------------------------------------------------~--------~ FIGURE2 Continued 260 College & Research Libraries Untverafty of Newel I University of Illinois University of lowe University of Kentucky University of Maryland University of Mlchtgen University of Ml11ourl Untveraltle de Montreal University of North Carol Ina, Chapel Hill University of Pittsburgh University of South Caroline University of Southern Florida University of s. Ml11l11lppl u. of TeMellee, Knoxvl lle University of Texas, Austin University of Toronto University of W11hlngton University of w. Ontario University of Wllconaln, Madison portions entire entire portions none entire portion entire portion portion portions portions portion entire portion portion portions portion entire portion portions May 1988 1) Introduction to Reference 2) •learning resources In content areas• 3) Planning & IIIIPlHentlng Lfbrery Instruct I on 1> Library Use Instruction 2) •general courses• 1) Beginning Reference 2) Advenced Reference 1) Instructional Role of Libraries 2) Library/Media Center User Instruction 3) Introduction to Reference Bibliographic Instruction •general reference• Mil feu et uaegera 1> Acede•fc Libraries 2) Teaching & Acede•fc Life 1) Collection Develop~~ent & Use 2) lnfor .. tlon Sources & Service• Educational Services In Lfbrerlea Use of the Library A~fnlltretlon of Media Centers 1) Learning Reeourcea Progr••• 2) Public Libraries 3) Acede•lc Libraries Reference Servl cea: Organ I zet I on & A~fnfatretlon Lfbrerlenahfp .600 lnfor .. tlon Sources & Services 1) Beale Reference 2> Advanced Reference 3) AcedHfc Libraries 4) School Lfbrerfenahfp FIGURE2 Continued 1965 1987 1983 1985 1981? 1980 1976 1980 1977 1979 1976 1977 81976 1983 1982 1983 1976 tion was valuable to. students at a 1 or 2 level on a five-point scale. Two-thirds [n = 66] responded 1 or 2 to both five-point scales (work satisfaction attitudes; percep- tions of the value of bibliographic instruc- tion to students). Not surprisingly, the large majority of respondents was engaged in fairly tradi- tional bibliographic instruction, the ''one- hour'' stand, ninety-five giving one-time lectures requested by teaching faculty, and seventy-four engaged in one-time library-initiated lectures. A sizable minor- ity [n = 30] of librarians taught quarter- or semester-length courses, while fifteen . gave shorter courses. Regardless of the type of instruction with which they were involved, tables 3 and 4 show that librari- ans believed instruction to be valuable to students; and most enjoyed their instruc- tional duties. CONCLUSIONS Answers to the questions that led to my survey of science librarians can be summa- rized: 1. Most respondents had not received systematic training from their institutions. Karen Stabler's study indicates that this is neither a new condition nor limited to Cal- ifornia.11 2. Instructional librarians pursue vari- ous means of improving their skills. 3. The question of librarians giving bib- liographic instruction only in areas con- Research Notes 261 gruent with their own subject back- grounds was split: about half of the librarians surveyed gave library use in- struction only in areas in which they themselves had some education; about half were not limited in this manner. 4. Enjoyment level was high. The ma- jority of librarians giving bibliographic in- struction in each discipline rated their en- joyment at the 1 or 2 level. 5. Library schools are slowly increasing their offerings in bibliographic instruc- tion, but the situation is not ideal. Respondents to this survey were an ex- perienced and highly motivated group with very positive attitudes about the need for and the value of library use in- struction. A majority of both very experi- enced and less experienced librarians took advantage of diverse training methods to hone their instructional skills. This inter- , est in professional development is espe- cially laudable in light of the cursory treat- ment still given bibliographic instruction by library schools. For the foreseeable fu- ture, it must be recognized that newly minted librarians are unlikely to have been taught bibliographic instruction techniques in school. Because a library cannot expect that new graduates will meet its instructional standards, each li- brary must create its own program or find other means of developing new profes- sionals. TABLE 3 SATISFACTION LEVELS OF RESPONDENTS BY TYPE OF INSTRUCTION Satisfaction Level 3 4 5 Library initiated 22 33 15 3 0 Type of Professor requested 30 39 19 6 0 Instructional Full course 11 11 4 4 0 Program: Brief 4 10 1 0 0 Other 9 7 4 0 0 TABLE4 OPINION LEVELS OF RESPONDENTS ABOUT VALUE OF INSTRUCTION TO STUDENTS BY TYPE OF INSTRUCTION Opinion Level 2 3 4 5 Library initiated 43 20 6 3 0 Type of Professor requested 56 25 8 4 0 Instructional Full course 22 5 1 2 0 Program: Brief 8 0 1 0 0 Other 14 6 0 1 0 262 College & Research Libraries May 1988 REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Wendy Culotta, "Getting Involved in Science Bibliographic Instruction: The Role of the General Reference Librarian,'' paper delivered at a joint meeting of California Clearinghouse for Library Instruction and Science and Engineering Academic Librarians, Los Angeles, January 21, 1984. 2. Barbara J. Smith, "Background Characteristics and Education Needs of a Group of Instruction Librarians in Pennsylvania," College & Research Libraries 43:199-207 (1982). 3. Barbara Magnuson, ed., SEAL Directory of California Academic and Research Librarians in Science and Engineering. (Northridge, Calif. : Science & Engineering Academic Librarians, 1985). 4. Karen Y. Stabler, "Introductory Training of Academic Reference Librarians: A Survey," RQ, 26:363-69 (1987). 5. J. R. Kennedy, "Question: A Separate Course in Bibliographic Instruction or Course-Related Li- brary Instruction?" inS. H. Lee, ed., Library Orientation: Papers Presented at the First Annual Confer- ence on Library Orientation Held at Eastern Michigan University, May 7, 1971 (Ann Arbor: Pierian Press, 1972). 6. Sue Galloway, "Nobody Is Teaching the Teachers," Booklegger 3:29-31 (1976). 7. Ibid; Marilyn Lutzker, "On-the-job Training for Instruction Librarians," Reference Services Review 10:63-64 (1982); Lisa Howarth and Donald Kenney, "Education for Bibliographic Instruction: A Syllabi Project," College & Research Libraries News 10:379-80 (1983). 8. Maureen Pastine and Karen Seibert, ''Update on the Status of Bibliographic Instruction in Library School Programs," Journal of Education for Librarianship.21:169-71 (1980). 9. Robert Brundin, ''Education for Instructional Librarians: Development and Overview,'' Journal of Education for Library and Infonnation Science 25:177-89 (1985). 10. Carolyn Kirkendall, ed., "Library Instruction, a Column of Opinion: Should Library Schools Teach Library Instruction?" Journal of Academic Librarianship 8:34-35 (1982). 11. Karen Y. Stabler, "Introductory Training of Academic Reference Librarians: A Survey," RQ, 26-363:69 (1987) . Concentrated ... Condensed ... Compact. .. No matter how you say it, smaller is better. People want more information in a sm~ller package. - And that's what you get with Biological Abstracts® in microform as your life sciences reference tool. Delivering the scope of coverage you've come to expect from BIOSIS ®, SA in microform provides you with rapid access and saves a lot of shelf space. In fact, you can store 18 years' worth of SA in microform in the same amount of space taken up by just one year of the printed publicat_ion! See for yourself. Contact BIOSIS Marketing Section, 2100 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-1399 USA; Tel. (215) 587-4800 (worldwide); toll free 1-800-523-4806 (USA except PA). Telex .831739; Fax (215) 587-2016. BIOLOGICAL ABSTRACTS IN MICROFORM BIOSIS is a not-for-profit organization serving the biological community since 1926. BIOSIS CRL5881CT