Science reporting, just like all other reporting, has to capture the interest of the audience, people do not read things that do not interest them. In order to reach beyond the realm of science researchers, the stories have to carry an exceptional element; no one wants to read about cells that lived for a long time,but people do want to read about an immortal chicken heart. Embellishing stories is a part of journalism, not just scientific reporting. However, in science specifically writers do not want to risk alienating potential readers who are not as familiarized with scientific concepts explored in their work. Creating accessible work is about spreading education and enabling the public to realize scientific discoveries that could potentially benefit them. The world of science often appears as an elaborate mystery to those who do not understand it fully. Scientific reporting has to reach, not only other researchers, but the public as well. If there is a new HIV medication being developed or a vaccine that has horrendous side effects, then the more the public knows then their medical decisions can be more informed. Since acts granting patients rights to informed consent were passed knowledge is the most valuable tool a patient can have at their disposal with regard to medical choices. Accessibility of science reporting, ensures more people benefit from any particular discovery.
Hi Sophia, do you think it is sometimes better for scientists to keep some things secret from the general public or do you think that everyone has the right to know all scientific work?
The matter of public information and who determines what should be public versus private is controversial. The general public should have access to information directly concerning their well being, such the tests for various genetic diseases; personally relevant information. Science thrives on the exchange of ideas and testing of hypothesis by various researchers. Should that research be limited specifically to the scientific community? Just because people are scientist does not mean they are better people and just because people are not scientist does not make them worse people. The sharing of information has always been a point of conflict, but who has the authority to decide what the people know versus what the people do not know. Depriving people of knowledge has not had historically beneficial results. The general public should be entitled to all scientific discoveries. A misuse of information can happen with anyone whether they belong to the scientific community or not. For example, the information needed to make a bomb is online, anyone with access to the internet can find out how to build a bomb, but that does not mean everyone who has access to the internet sits around building bombs all day. Withholding information is not conductive to an intelligent, free-thinking society.
To add to Sophia’s thought, science reporting being sensationalized is important (it is important in both aspects of informing the world, but accuracy as well). Even though society being informed about the current events and tragedies of the world is important, it is not always the best choice. Censorship works by preventing certain aspects of knowledge being revealed to modern society to prevent panic and chaos. Panic can always blow a situation out of proportion: “ Alcabes said that while public officials, in the early going, admitted to having little data on the virus and resisted calls to close the borders. But as time went on, he said, officials took many steps he feels were unnecessary, including mass, rather than targeted vaccination” (Brownstein, writing for ABC News). Chaos not only blows the situation out of proportion, but also deviates the center of attention to society’s panic rather than the actual medical issue. In other words, the government will work harder to prevent the public from panicking when it is actually taking time away from further science related research. Also, science discoveries, I feel, should never be published without a great amount of research and data. If published without clue of how to stop a situation, or even proper research of what the actual subject is, it will eventually cause a greater panic with in the public. Science reporting, sometimes, comes better with censorship.
Science reporting, just like all other reporting, has to capture the interest of the audience, people do not read things that do not interest them. In order to reach beyond the realm of science researchers, the stories have to carry an exceptional element; no one wants to read about cells that lived for a long time,but people do want to read about an immortal chicken heart. Embellishing stories is a part of journalism, not just scientific reporting. However, in science specifically writers do not want to risk alienating potential readers who are not as familiarized with scientific concepts explored in their work. Creating accessible work is about spreading education and enabling the public to realize scientific discoveries that could potentially benefit them. The world of science often appears as an elaborate mystery to those who do not understand it fully. Scientific reporting has to reach, not only other researchers, but the public as well. If there is a new HIV medication being developed or a vaccine that has horrendous side effects, then the more the public knows then their medical decisions can be more informed. Since acts granting patients rights to informed consent were passed knowledge is the most valuable tool a patient can have at their disposal with regard to medical choices. Accessibility of science reporting, ensures more people benefit from any particular discovery.
ReplyDeleteHi Sophia, do you think it is sometimes better for scientists to keep some things secret from the general public or do you think that everyone has the right to know all scientific work?
ReplyDeleteThe matter of public information and who determines what should be public versus private is controversial. The general public should have access to information directly concerning their well being, such the tests for various genetic diseases; personally relevant information. Science thrives on the exchange of ideas and testing of hypothesis by various researchers. Should that research be limited specifically to the scientific community? Just because people are scientist does not mean they are better people and just because people are not scientist does not make them worse people. The sharing of information has always been a point of conflict, but who has the authority to decide what the people know versus what the people do not know. Depriving people of knowledge has not had historically beneficial results. The general public should be entitled to all scientific discoveries. A misuse of information can happen with anyone whether they belong to the scientific community or not. For example, the information needed to make a bomb is online, anyone with access to the internet can find out how to build a bomb, but that does not mean everyone who has access to the internet sits around building bombs all day. Withholding information is not conductive to an intelligent, free-thinking society.
DeleteTo add to Sophia’s thought, science reporting being sensationalized is important (it is important in both aspects of informing the world, but accuracy as well). Even though society being informed about the current events and tragedies of the world is important, it is not always the best choice. Censorship works by preventing certain aspects of knowledge being revealed to modern society to prevent panic and chaos. Panic can always blow a situation out of proportion: “ Alcabes said that while public officials, in the early going, admitted to having little data on the virus and resisted calls to close the borders. But as time went on, he said, officials took many steps he feels were unnecessary, including mass, rather than targeted vaccination” (Brownstein, writing for ABC News). Chaos not only blows the situation out of proportion, but also deviates the center of attention to society’s panic rather than the actual medical issue. In other words, the government will work harder to prevent the public from panicking when it is actually taking time away from further science related research. Also, science discoveries, I feel, should never be published without a great amount of research and data. If published without clue of how to stop a situation, or even proper research of what the actual subject is, it will eventually cause a greater panic with in the public. Science reporting, sometimes, comes better with censorship.
ReplyDelete