Author: Justin Bischof

In this class, I learned about numerous scientific topics and how they relate to the world around us.  I learned that scientific questions are formed from mere observations and how scientists go about answering these questions.  I felt that this class was extremely informative, although the PowerPoint lectures were somewhat less so than the hands-on lessons.  I liked that the topics we were taught often times related back to current events or things we’ve done like the BioBlitz.  For the most part, I felt that the two major assignments were grueling, to say the least.  But, I felt rewarded after completing them.  With that being said, it felt like much of the material covered in class that related to our projects was closer to sets of instructions (e.g. the PowerPoints on creating an abstract, writing a lab report, Chicago Style guide, etc.).  I also didn’t enjoy that we had two projects; I felt that we ended up focusing on one or the other because we only presented one at the STEAM Festival.  I feel that if we had a choice between the two from the start, the process would have seemed more relevant.  Nevertheless, I still very much enjoyed the class.  I especially appreciated the small experiments in class, such as creating snow and setting things on fire in addition to the labs themselves.  I felt that these hands-on experiments really helped the class grasp the ideas we were taught in class.  Once again, I have to thank my professors for this wonderful class.  I am also really grateful that we don’t have to worry about a final for this class.

Working in the lab yesterday was an incredibly exciting experience. I felt that it enhanced our understanding of certain topics we covered in class, especially experimental design and scientific uncertainty. It was really worthwhile to not only learn about drug development in class but to also apply what we learned to a real-life lab setting. Moreover, although my aspirin did not come out to be perfectly pure, I felt that the experience itself was valid because it showed us that despite following directions carefully, the final product does not always turn out correctly. This concept demonstrated the uncertainty that comes with an experiment, which is why it is so pivotal to perform multiple trials of an experiment. On top of that, a well thought out experimental design comes in handy when performing the experiment.  Also, I can draw similarities from what we did in the lab to the projects we have been working on throughout the semester. Both the lab and the Bioblitz research we have been doing emphasize the scientific method in that both pose a question, then seek to answer the question, and finally analyze the results to make relevant conclusions. Likewise, the 3-D printing highlights the need to have a valid design when pursuing a healthcare innovation, much like the experimental design of creating aspirin.

If I was an author for the NY Times and was tasked with writing an article on primary scientific literature, I would need to include several things in order to appeal to a general audience while staying in line with the primary literature.  To begin, I definitely would need to refrain from making any conclusion that wasn’t made in the original study. I would need to be able to include quotes from the study itself or even reach out to the researchers in order to get their own take.  Doing this would ensure the legitimacy of my own article while also using my platform as a popular media reporter to educate the general population.

A good representation of scientific research in a popular media report requires including all aspects of the study itself.  Something I noticed with a majority of the articles (including mine) was that certain parts of the study were left out in order to center the popular article around a specific point (e.g. in my article, the fact that the airport security trays that were tested had more viruses than the toilet seats was pretty much the crux of the article). I think this is something that could be improved on when journalists write about science.  Something in my own and my classmates’ research my that really struck me as interesting was the fact that the bigger the claim made in the title of the popular article usually correlated with a less reliable article. I think that journalists in the Information Age often times need to get those views on their article to stay relevant and including a bold claim in the title of the article they write is a way of achieving a higher click ratio.