Science writing is the art of converting scientific knowledge from an academic, research-based, or highly technical form to one the general public can easily understand. The purpose of science writing is to educate and inform readers, who are not entrenched in scientific fields but are interested in scientific news and events. In order to fully understand the material, these readers require additional context and background.
“The difference between screwing around and science is writing it down.” states Adam Savage, former co-host of television show Mythbusters. The difference between writing it down for a fellow researcher in an academic publication, and writing it down for a general audience is that of scope, context and vocabulary. In a professional journal, an author is assuming a shared foundation of scientific knowledge with the reader, acquired through years of study. In mainstream science magazines or books, the reader is assumed to be literate and equipped with a peripheral knowledge of basic scientific fields such as chemistry, biology, physics and astronomy. The vocabulary of a professional researcher is not only dramatically different than everyday American English, but is also revered and imbued with a certain level of authority that inhibits the asking of questions. An example of this is the ‘dihydrogen monoxide’ hoax that makes its way around social media every few years, emphasizing the corrosive power and health dangers of a chemical that most people refer to simply as water.
Science writing is at its core, an educational pursuit. In a short span of a few hundred to a few thousand words, a science writer is attempting to convey a discovery or process-usually one that took highly experienced researchers with cumulative decades of education-years to uncover. The ultimate recipients of this shorthand education are then, ideally, left better-informed, and capable of making more educated decisions. Sometimes these decisions are political, for example, whether to support a local moratorium on hydraulic fracturing. Other times the decisions are highly personal, such as identifying which medicines or treatment options are most likely to be effective for a specific disease or condition. In still other situations, the outcome is a more nuanced understanding of human history and evolution, which may then be used to make an educated inference about the future of a culture or civilization.
Science writing can have a negative impact as well. It can be confusing, misleading, or written with inherent bias towards a certain behavior or outcome. It can be politically motivated, to engage readers merely seeking reassurance of their existing beliefs. Finally, it can be inaccurate and provide readers with false information. Not only is this unethical, but encourages the perpetuation of inaccurate information. The reader will carry this falsehood with them into the future, and make bad decisions based on it. The outcome of this is can result in self-defeating or even self-harming behaviors. Alternately, the reader will be come to the conclusion at a later date that they were misled. The outcome of this is embarrassment, cynicism and distrust of the scientific community-a contagious and dangerous mindset that threatens all of human progress.
I have three basic tiers of scientific “truthiness” to borrow from comedian Stephen Colbert. Tier One is comprised of primary sources and reputable news or content aggregation organizations. Examples include NASA, BBC, NPR, NSF, NIH, abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, and experts with a proven track record in their field. Tier Two includes reputable journalists and authors who interview anyone from Tier One and assemble cogent arguments; alternately they may provide critical analysis of reports or content from Tier One. This category includes verified social media accounts for scientific, government or research agencies as well as print or digital publications that are not peer reviewed, but have a history of accuracy and neutrality. Tier three is the widest net and includes podcasts, blogs, and articles which are intriguing but generally require additional research to confirm or further understand the topic. At minimum, these sources should include a list of resources for their audience; otherwise they fall into the category of pure speculation or as Adam Savage would put it, screwing around.
No comments:
Post a Comment