Author: Abishek Johnson

Coming into this seminar, I was not sure what to expect. Would it be Chemistry based because of Professor Greer’s background, would it relate to the science of NYC, or maybe a combination? I quickly learned that I would learn a diverse set of skills from this class. From learning how to write a proper abstract, how to use Chicago style MLA guidelines, and how to properly use the scientific method to create presentable and publishable work was something I took pride in. As the class draws near an end, I have highlights as well as things I would change in this class.

Some of highlights include the small experiments we would do in class, like creating snow or even setting things on fire. I wish this was something we did more of throughout the year. The Soap Lab was something I really enjoyed, whether it was just creating something useful or applying science in a way I never thought of before was eye opening. Other highlights include how group oriented this class. Working with peers always made the experience more enjoyable, such as going to BioBlitz together and working on our two major projects together.

Some things I might change in this class is all the times we spent learning about remedial subjects, such as the lesson on statistics. I believe that time could’ve have been better used, such as working on our projects. We also had too many assignments due too often in my opinion, which definitely caused stress throughout points in the semester.

However, this class was still informative and I learned a lot, I am grateful to my Professors and peers for making this experience what it was.

Working alongside my peers in the MakerHub Lab on the TinkerCad interface developing our 3D Healthcare Innovation really opened up my eyes to the importance of the experimental design aspect of a scientific project. Without our initial attention to detail in our learning phases of TinkerCad, properly building our 3D Healthcare Innovation would have been much more difficult without the knowledge we gained from that training period we spent in the MakerHub Lab. Those experiences helped to shape the way we approached the construction and development of our prototype to hold and cool severed body parts in the case of emergencies. Although this process was vital, I never realized how vital it would become because as we developed our prototype, we had to account and include in the previous steps of the Scientific Method. This proved imperative to the success of building an efficient 3D prototype that followed our observations and was measured by data analysis around how large to make the box depending on the average size of common human limbs that were severed. If we didn’t account for this previous data and observations, we would be developing an incomplete and incompetent experimental design. Overall, this learning process building and developing our 3D Healthcare Innovation really taught me to factor in the other steps of the scientific process in order to produce the best results.

– AJ Johnson

In the case I was an author for The Washington Post, writing about a recent healthcare discovery or innovation, I would definitely strategize to appeal to an overall general readership, as opposed to limiting my audience to just science and healthcare fanatics. This may include using easy scientific jargon, maybe not as easily found in the Primary Source Journal, but depicted in a way that still gets the main themes of the study across in layman’s terms. Other than merely simplifying scientific jargon, different elements include using easy to read graphs and creative images that each have accurate descriptions which would provide to make the reading experience more suited to the general public all while maintaining the integrity of the science discovered in the studies.

Throughout the presentation of our Hot Topic Research, some areas I’ve noticed that authors can improve upon when dealing with science based articles, is that they need to leave their personal bias out of it. The majority of authors, including the author of my healthcare innovation, Joel Achenbach, cited other scientists, unrelated to the study, that supported a few of his own personal claims on the study he was writing his article on. Although the writers have the freedom to give their own take, when presenting scientific evidence, it is better to stay along the lines of the primary source.

– AJ JOHNSON