Author: Natalie Csak

Being a student in the IDC 3002H course was a really interesting learning experience for me, as someone who is not used to working so collaboratively on science projects. In previous instruction I’ve received, all science-related work was done individually, with the exception of lab projects, which allowed me to hone in on subjects I was really interested in. IDC 3002H was very different. This course, and the specific section I was in, required me to go out of my comfort zone by studying topics that I was very unfamiliar with, in ways that I was unaccustomed to. I think one of the most challenging parts of this teaching mode was the prolonged teamwork. My teammates and I produced great work, but it wouldn’t be accurate to say that it was a breeze the entire semester. Having to collaborate for a whole semester on various tasks and projects was challenging, especially when we had to do other smaller things on the side (e.g. aspirin lab, and the soap lab). I’m very used to working in a team for maybe 2-3 weeks, but this collaborative effort lasted for a much longer time. I think this extended group work helped me realize my strengths and weaknesses as a group member more so than a short project would have.

I think the other smaller projects, like making graphs using the HIV/AIDS statistics, would have been a lot more beneficial to me if they were taught differently. For that project, we were told to break off into groups to make graphs, but I think that if that work was done individually that it would’ve been more fruitful. This is because it’s very hard to share information just using our laptops, while one person made the excel graphs. I think that, in this way, the learning style was not very beneficial for me.

Aside from the modes of instruction, I wish that we could have just done one of the smaller lab reports (aspirin/soap labs). This is because for each lab we had to write a 2 page lab report, and 2 pages is not very descriptive. I took a science research course in high school where I had to write 8-10 page reports, which were much more up-to-par with actual research that’s out there. I think if we focused on just one lab, and not both, that one lab report could’ve been much more descriptive and thorough.

Personally, I enjoyed taking this course, and I like that it was STEM-focused. Additionally, I thought the in-class science demonstrations were very enriching (my Instagram Story really spiced up this semester, thanks to those). I hope that as I continue my career in finance I never lose sight of the importance of scientific advancement, not just in NYC, but starting in the classroom.

Making aspirin in the lab last week was an enticing, yet difficult experience. I have not worked in a lab since my sophomore year of high school, so following protocol was probably the most challenging part of the entire lab. For example, I did not realize that a lot of crystals needed to develop before we began filtering it out (this was towards the end of the procedure). As a result, I was very eager to begin filtration, but luckily Professor Greer stepped in and reminded me that more crystals need to form before we could move on to filtration.

I also found it difficult to follow instructions to-a-T when we were working with TinkerCad. I think the reason why it was difficult for me then, was because of the time constraint. Especially when making aspiring, there was very limited time for Professor Greer to demonstrate the procedure throughly and go through all the safety instructions. She wanted to give us as much time as possible to get the lab done.

Ultimately, my team and I got the lab done, and we created very pure aspirin. In completing this lab, something became very apparent to me, and that is the concept of reproducibility. A scientific finding cannot mean much if other people are unable to reproduce the results. If a researcher can do something only once, it’s not so much a finding, but rather a lucky trial. By the same hand, in order for other researchers (or students in an IDC 3002H class) to reproduce results, directions must be very clear and descriptive. If instructions are not clear, people’s health could be compromised, especially if other researchers are trying to reproduce drugs like aspirin.

Walking away from this lab, I realize the significance of scientific reproducibility, and also the obligation a researcher has to put forth clear and descriptive instructions on their experiments. Without either of these two elements, people’s health and also the progression of science itself is at stake.

In completing the Hot Topic assignment, and in seeing my peers present theirs, many realizations about science journalism have come to my attention. A common thread amongst nearly all of the presentations is the simplifying nature of popular articles. Oftentimes, a popular article will simplify what is written in a scientific study for the sake of understandability. It is important to note that journalism, not unlike other fields, is a business too. A journalist’s writing may not receive views / generate revenue if it’s difficult to understand, especially if they are writing for big companies like the New York Times or CNN. Unfortunately, journalists simplifications come at the expense of accuracy, sometimes even unintentionally. In many of my peers’ presentations, they reported the scientific study was manipulated to convey a point or accomplish a motive.

If I were a journalist for a paper like the New York Times, I would be sure I thoroughly read the scientific literature in order to maintain scientific soundness. Yes, those publications can be very confusing, however it is a journalist’s ethical duty to report factual information, and an intensive read can help a journalist do this.

Good representation of a scientific study should include all the main points, including results, experiment design, and goals. Including graphs would be helpful, however using one might confuse viewers, so a journalist could simplify graphical data into a simpler graph like a bar or line chart. In this respect, journalists can improve on simplifying data, and not just the big takeaways.

Overall, I was surprised by the degree to which scientific data is represented in popular media. This was an eye-opening experience!