Category: Blog Entry 1 (Page 2 of 3)

In order to appeal to a general audience when writing an article based on a scientific paper while still maintaining its scientific characteristics, you should summarize the actual experiment covered in the paper such as why it was conducted, how it was carried out, and for what purposes. Emphasized parts of the abstract and conclusion, as well as actual numerical data should be included, as it heavily implies that the author of the NY Times or another comparable periodical actually comprehended the study’s information as opposed to writing something for the sake of attracting views. One thing I definitely feel authors should do on science based popular articles is quote or paraphrase from parts of the study, whether it be the discussion, methods, or abstract. This would increase credibility since information is taken directly from the source, resulting in less disputes concerning the veracity of the research or experiment. Popular articles should also justify how beneficial or useful the research is, perhaps by relating the scientific research article to the audience with brief anecdotes, questions, or media. Otherwise, people would lose interest quickly as they wonder “Why should I care?” Incorporating visual aids like graphs from the primary articles could also help the reader follow along with both the study’s research and the popular author’s interpretation.

Authors should definitely refrain from saying an innovation will do certain things  when it still needs more trials. It becomes misleading when for example, a popular article states, “X will cure Y” but the research states that there still needs to be further testing. Words like “might” or “could” better enforce accuracy. Remaining objective is important when communicating scientific data but allowing some subjectivity can also eliminate bias by providing other perspectives regarding the research. Citing someone else’s research or attitude towards the topic of the primary article may expose interpretations that the scientists had not considered, which can improve the research or innovation. As for the presentations of the class and my own, I was surprised about all of the progress in cancer research that we do not normally hear about. From nanobots to A.I. and new drugs, there is hope that one day the disease might actually be cured. It was also admirable that everyone understood, well at least tried to understand, what their primary articles were talking about, especially with all of the scientific jargon.

If I had to author a popular article based on a scientific journal, there would be quite a few things that I would be sure to include in order to make it appealing to the general audience while maintaining its scientific accuracy. First and foremost, I would absolutely make sure to include quotes from the author(s) of the scientific journal. Adding this enables the reader of the popular article to gain insight into what went on in the mind of the original author while conducting his or her experiment, and as a whole, I believe that it actually increases the credibility of the popular article. Second, I think it is important to make connections of the study at-hand to things of a light-hearted nature, such as pop culture. By doing this, the reader is able to relate more to the article, and the references may be able to help the reader understand the journal to a greater extent.

Something interesting I noticed is that a large sum of popular articles did not contain a single graph from their respective scientific journal – not even a simple one. This leads into my third point, which is that I would add a couple of simple graphs and images from the scientific journal in order to make the piece more colorful, and actually quantify some statistics from the journal. Lastly, and arguably most importantly, I would do my best to avoid any bias in my writing. Not only can taking a specific argumentative standpoint ruin the credibility of one’s piece, it can also make it unappealing due to lack of factual information, which may cause the reader to easily lose interest. All in all, the two most important questions to ask yourself while writing a popular article are “will the reader want to continue reading this?” And “Is everything 100% accurate?” With these questions in mind, a unique and credible popular article is sure to be produced!

If I had to write a popular media article based on a scientific paper, I would include visual aids and interviews to make the article appealing to a general audience while retaining its scientific relevance.  Visual aids such as pictures, graphs or charts would represent the scientific information and research in an appealing and comprehensible way that could retain the attention of the audience while remaining informative.  Diagrams and charts could help to complement the scientific information from the text, and such visuals could present the scientific findings and results from the primary source in an innovative way.  Likewise, interviews with people connected to the specific scientific topic or study such as researchers, doctors or patients would provide the audience with a better understanding of the scientific topic’s significance.  Incorporating a simplified synopsis of the scientific research along with relevant first-hand perspectives and visuals would strengthen the effectiveness of the scientific research in resonating with ordinary readers who may not otherwise find it appealing.

One area where authors could improve when writing about science is tampering expectations of the impact of the scientific research that they are reporting on.  Popular media authors should refrain from exaggerating and inferring more idealistic conclusions beyond the conclusions of the scientific research.  Beyond this criticism, I was struck by the controversial research that was conducted pertaining to modifying genes to cure or treat certain diseases or disorders such as muscular dystrophy.  I was surprised that the authors of the popular media articles pertaining to these studies did not adequately mention the ethical concerns of theses methods of genetic modification.  This is a controversial form of scientific research, and I believe that the authors should have highlighted the concerns to the audience and presented the potential risks.

Watching the hot topic presentations over the past three classes and delivering my own, I came away with a clearer understanding of what qualities characterize a reliable popular science writer. Some writers were further removed from the science journals they were referencing than others. It was an established theme throughout the presentations that simplifying scientific jargon, excluding certain confusing data illustrations, and making the news more palatable to a wider audience is possible without bending the truth. One approach that was common among popular science writers was taking the brief “abstract” section of a scientific journal and expanding on it. This can be done by pairing technical points relevant to the scientific finding with something comparable and familiar. For example, in my NYT article the author compared the disabling of a cell to the turning off of a light switch. Another approach taken by science writers is interviewing the professionals in the field with greater expertise and credibility, quoting them directly in the article. That is an element that was lacking according to some of the students who presented. Too often an author’s personal agenda to sensationalize or get a point across made the actual scientific findings of a secondary importance. This was more common with less reputable publications such as Vox with Daniel’s presentation. Something of interest that I notices while doing my own research is that part of a scientific journal could be written in such a way as to favor a particular company. Synlogic did this with the reputable Nature journal and that was reflected in the popular article. Even though the scientific journal had a disclaimer near the end pointing out this fact, it can still be misleading for audiences that trust the original source. I wish the popular articles had used visual aids more often from the research and broken them down in a way that the general population can comprehend. It would be more interesting to have an accurate mental image of the bacteria or microbes being talked about.

If I was to write an article on a scientific paper, I’d make sure to highlight the scientific finding/research ‘s relevance to modern-day society. If I was an everyday reader of scientific papers, then sure reading a title that simply defines the study would intrigue me. But in reality, the title is vital to gaining readership and views to the study. This does not mean that it has to be “clickbait” or skewed in an inappropriate and misleading way to gain attention, but I think it is important to choose a relevant and relatable scientific finding to promote for readers to learn from. A good example was from one of the presentations about nanobots and relating it to the film “Big Hero 6.” Making modern-day references and connections will give the reader a point of reference to understand the scientific paper a little bit more in terms of logistics and mechanisms. I find that images are also extremely important. This isn’t to say to offer images with complicated terms, but ones that a viewer can easily follow. An image provided with an explanation is a good way for readers to understand. What I found interesting was that a lot of the class’ presentations were reviews and analyses of their scientific journal, meanwhile mine was more of a “pick and choose” article that had their own topic and organization to talk about while backing it with the study to add more credential to their article. This, in many ways, can be useful since readers, viewers and skeptics will be looking for validation and support. I’m not sure if this is the best way of using scientific findings, but I do find it to be a savvy method.

If I had to author an article in the NY Times or a comparable periodical on a scientific paper, I would be sure to include visual aids such as photographs, graphs, charts, and/or infographics to display statistics in an appealing and understandable way while remaining scientifically sound. In addition, I would use quotations from expert sources, so that I do not accidentally misinterpret data. If I am not understanding something thoroughly, then I would reach out to the researchers and interview them myself to increase my comprehension. Writers, such as myself, should realize their limitations and that they are not experts at everything; this is okay as long as we do not try to fill-in the gaps with inaccurate or misleading information. I also think that authors should be careful of oversimplifying information (e.g. leaving out standard deviation values, variables that could have altered the results, extraneous values etc) as it can often lead to more definitive-sounding results that make the article less objective. There were many presentations in class that testified to this problem. I was surprised that several of the authors of the popular media article had no science background. As readers we should always be mindful of this and determine the credibility of the source.

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!

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

If I was the author of a New York Times article, reporting on a scientific matter, I would make sure that I conveyed the information accurately and in a way that will draw in the readers and keep them interested until the end. To do that, I would read any relevant information found in other journals or scientific articles until I had a comprehensive understanding of the topic I was writing about. No matter how passionate I was about the subject, I would  address any and all sides including any disagreements or  controversies. I noticed that the author of my popular report remained unbiased and completely objective when reporting about animal therapy. In addition, if I referenced another article or heard a scholar say something interesting, I would not only cite the information, but also put the complex data into simple words, so professionals and nonprofessionals can understand. Fascinating statistics have always been the most interesting parts of scientific articles for me and I believe they are not used enough.  If I was an author, I would fill my article with unbelievable numbers and data in big bold letters that would make it hard for the readers to stop reading.  While listening to my classmates, I noticed how well they conveyed the scientific information as if they were writing their own scientific reports. Everyone accurately and successfully simplified the information they read in the scientific journals, which was not easy to do, and still engaged their classmates like real authors.

In doing research for my hot topic presentation and listening to those of my peers I have been able to learn alot about the role and duty that popular media outlets have in regards to reporting about the sciences. Since the audience of these particular entities is mostly average people with little to no expertise in specific scientific fields, it is important that the information be presented in a way that is appealing and easy to understand while also being scientifically sound. In order to do this I would make sure to be thorough with my research and relay the information in a concise way without altering any details. Including helpful charts and diagrams could also prove usual to give a visual aid to the information. Although I would want to make it appealing, I would not distort the facts to present a more likable claim. A good representation of scientific research not only includes simplifying scientific jargon, but also presenting all of the facts and limitations of it. When writing about science it is important that authors do not omit unfavorable results or data or pick and choose which conclusions they would like to present. As I was listening to the presentations I found it interesting how some authors misrepresented data to further a certain agenda. I wondered if this was done intentionally, or was a result of poor writing. Either way it is definitely something that deserves to be taken into consideration when representing scientific research to a general audience.