Tag Archives: pdf

Handout: the Science Poster

Fellow ITF Laurel Mei-Singh made this super helpful handout about creating a science poster for the MHC Poster Sessions (Dec. 5-6) and she has graciously let the rest of the ITFs share it with our classes. You can also find this handout in the Google Drive folder.

Update, Nov. 3: Print your poster for free at Macaulay Central on the following dates, no appointment necessary on a first come, first serve basis (the handout has been updated to include these dates):

  • Monday, Nov. 23, 10 am-5 pm
  • Tuesday, Nov. 24, 11 am-7 p
  • Monday, Nov. 3-, 10 am-5 pm

You must go to Macaulay Central in person with your poster saved as a PowerPoint file on a flash drive. Posters can’t be reprinted, so please carefully read your work before printing. Please note that if you miss these dates, you are responsible for printing your poster on your own.

If you’ve created a personal eportfolio site to showcase your work, keep in mind that the poster is a fantastic project to demonstrate your visual and communication skills! I’d love to work with students on their posters: we can brainstorm some initial ideas, work together on the design, or troubleshoot any issues that might arise.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Other Ways Media Communicates Science

Hey all! Our discussion a few weeks ago led me to really think about other ways the media can communicate the science world to everyday people. So here is another good example of how they do it, aside from news articles. Enjoy!

Below in the link are two political cartoons referring to two major topics of discussion we have had in class. The first political cartoon being about plastics in the marine environment, and the second cartoon about Climate change. Although this post is not a particularly enlightening video or article, helping us learn something new about either of the topics, I do believe it relates to another discussion we were having in class about communicating science to everyday people. When a New York Times writer has to write an article about a certain set science topic, the article will be completely different from the article the scientist published in a scientific journal. The language and concepts would be simplified so everyday people would understand, at the least, what the issue at hand is. Some crucial information may be lost along the simplification process, but all in all, it creates some sort of awareness. It had struck me that the media does this in some many more ways than just news articles, one of these ways being political cartoons.

The media’s goal when presenting topics about “frontier” science is to get people interested and wanting to know more about the topic they are writing about. Political cartoons do this in a way that not only gets the readers attention but makes them do the thinking and them do the research. For example, the first cartoon of the marine plastics. The man says that “you can hear the sounds of the mid ocean garbage patch.” The cartoon ends there, yet people completely unaware of the plastics issue would be lost as to the punch lie of the joke. However, the reader has already become aware of the issue at hand due to a visually joke. That is, the man holding the plastic bottle to his ear while walking along a beach full of plastics. So the cartoon has fulfilled the media’s goal of presenting an issue and creating awareness, while provoking interest in a medium both scientists and everyday people understand, humor.

It is interesting how these political cartoons can speak to both everyday people, and scientists alike. With articles, it is hard to get the other party’s approval due to the language and knowledge barrier scientists have over people. The political cartoons use humor and visual stimulus to get attention but also something articles do not get; and that is curiosity. We had mentioned that for those people who knew nothing of the plastics issue, they would have missed the punch line completely. However, this does something an article does not, and that is, it provokes curiosity. The curiosity of understanding the joke will make people do their own research about the issue at hand. I see this as a better way to communicate science because people will go across many sources that talk about issue instead of just one media source that may not be up to par scientifically. So the cartoons almost force the engaged readers to do their own research, which seems to be the best way to get one’s information.

Not all political cartoons are so straightforward as the first one. Take a look at the second one, it seems to be a little harder to understand. Some may argue that difficult cartoons such as the second one are hard for people to understand and would turn them away from trying to understand the issue. However, through the visual aspect of the cartoon, even the youngest and most ignorant readers will understand at least a part of it. For example, there is a really big snake eating a person, and on it, it says global warming. From this, people already know that this thing called “global warming” is a bad thing, because 1) it is being portrayed as a snake, and 2) it is eating the person.

In writing their articles the media is so interested in getting people’s attention and giving them the answers and consolation they look for when they’re curious about a topic. I don’t think people give political cartoons the credit they deserve. They can be very useful in getting a point across, quickly, and comically while provoking both curiosity and interest. This seems to be particularly useful when dealing with the realm of science.

Download (DOCX, 869KB)

 

 

Must-Read: “New Link in the Food Chain? Marine Plastic Pollution and Seafood Safety”

Many people are not concerned about the issue of increasing plastic consumption and its pollution into our oceans. It may not be necessarily that people don’t care. It could very well be that they do care, but not enough because it does not directly affect them/us. Something that may or may not change our minds on the issue: “New Link in the Food Chain? Marine Plastic Pollution and Seafood Safety.” This is an article that was published in the Environmental Health Perspectives journal that talks about the potential impact marine plastics can have on humans through our food chain.

Group 2’s focus is on the effect that plastic pollution can indirectly have on humans. It is an intriguing topic and is definitely concerning. The article talks about plastic’s tendency to “sorb” or take up “persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances,” which can be found in the bodies of water we are polluting. The article then discusses how these toxic-sorbed plastics find their ways into marine animals when they eat. As seen in Ana Luiza’s video, even the smallest of organisms are documented as having consumed microplastics. As we go up the food chain, the plastics follow, all the way up to commonly eaten seafood like tuna and swordfish and ultimately making it’s way to us. I think this article is a must-read for anyone even remotely concerned about their own health and of course the plastics issue at large.

This food chain issue is an interesting piece to the puzzle that is plastic pollution. A lot of what was talked about in the article is not yet proven by scientific research, which is why some people are not convinced. Funding for research on this topic is harder to get because of greater concern in other things (overfishing, acidification) and although we have a lot more to learn, it is comforting to know that the EPA and other government agencies are starting to look into it. By 2016, the EPA plans to launch a full-scale “inquiry” into effects on human health in relation to chemical loading effects on plastic litter. I’d urge everyone to give this article a read because it gives us a good understanding of what we know, what we can infer, and what we still have to learn about plastic’s harmful link in our food chain.

 

Link here: 

Download (PDF, Unknown)