#5

Those who have conducted studies to show the link between vaccines and autism are by no means scientifically illiterate. They have an understanding of science and know how to manipulate and exploit data to produce artificial results that they want to see. In that sense, they are not ignorant or illiterate, but rather dishonest. To earn a position in a lab where scientific research is conducted and the right to publish your findings, you’d have had to study science for many years in college and graduate school. This would certainly lead to an accumulation of scientific literacy. Those who seek to use science with bias and select the results they wish to see before conducting the experiment know that their results may very well be untrue. They probably even know that real scientific data wouldn’t produce the results they want, which is why they cheat and use altered data.

            The people who research publications made by dishonest scientists are at least making the attempt to acquaint themselves with science. Those who simply browse through titles to support their view that vaccines cause autism may be doing themselves a disservice by not enhancing their scientific literacy at all, but those who read through the papers and try to understand the scientific evidence are still learning from it, even if not all of the information is influenced by falsified data. They’re unfortunately learning incorrect information, but to understand this incorrect information, they’d have to learn a lot of terminology and concepts as well. Someone with a true desire to get to the bottom of the issue would devote time to reading scientific papers from both sides.

            Those who do not make the effort to read any scientific literature and simply look to the advice of Jenny McCarthy are completely scientifically illiterate and ignorant. They deserve no say in the matter because they would not be able to scientifically support their stance anyway. As a science writer, that is extremely discouraging. It boggles my mind that there are people who will trust Jenny McCarthy more than people who are trained in either research or reporting science throughout their education. It really demonstrates the work that is cut out for science writers—reaching an audience of people who are not simply ignorant but prefer to remain that way. The field of science needs to remain separate from others like politics, entertainment, and art when controversy arises. People from non-science fields should have no say in important science issues, for they will likely be wrong. Allowing this room for wrong scientific findings is very dangerous for our society, as who knows what can happen? We can miss the next important vaccine that could cure a huge pandemic, or we could impose an alternative treatment to those suggested by scientists that jeopardizes many lives.  

#4

It is the responsibility of a science writer to decipher what mystifies the plain eye and remove the daunting stigma that surrounds ‘science.’ Science should not be tightly wrapped up with secrets and withheld from the public—it must be “given away,” spread throughout the population and made readily available to anyone who wants to know about it. This can be achieved through breaking down the rough concepts as much as possible—whenever writing for science, imagine yourself teaching the subject to a group of students in front of you. Do not assume that they have prior knowledge on the matter, so define any terms which are not commonly used in the English language. I am particularly experienced with this as I currently am a supplemental instructor for the introductory biology classes at school. Often, concepts and terms that I take for a given confuse the students who haven’t had as strong of a science background in the past. For them to understand it, I have to make it really simple. For them to be interested in it, I try to employ humor and real-life analogies whenever possible. I believe that someone who can take that kind of narrative when writing—as if they are a teacher—would be the most successful kind of writer.

Spreading awareness of science would benefit the common good in that people would understand what’s going on in the science world. Your doctor is telling you to take a brand new medication? A science writer reporting the emergence of this new drug should explain in plain terms why. Your preferred political candidate is discussing global warming? Science writing should help you understand what he or she is saying. A new chemical is being introduced into drinking water reservoirs and it’s harmful to you? You should know exactly what the effects of the chemical are. The responsibility of a science writer is to serve as a teacher to the public and make sure they are well-informed about their surroundings entirely.  

#3

When young kids are growing up, they have the fortune of experiencing basic science firsthand, not just hearing about it in the classroom. They watch movies, both factual and fictional about dinosaurs, learning their names and even which dinosaurs ate which, so when they play with dinosaur toys, oftentimes they can almost mimic the ecological processes of predation and competition that have been illustrated to them. When they play on the playground during the summer, a plethora of caterpillars are found in the trees and leaves. They can observe the caterpillars, noting their movements, body structure and diets. Those who decide to collect and raise those caterpillars reap an even better benefit—seeing metamorphosis in action, one of the coolest developmental processes in science. And we can’t forget rocks—the diversity of which in shape, size, color, and shine is so vast and fascinating. Whether they’re simply collecting pebbles or finding nice chunks of quartz, it’s not uncommon to see a rock collection.

An old Chinese proverb once said “Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll understand.” The immediate love that kids acquire for science stems from the fact that they are allowed to involve themselves in their own kind of field research and make all sorts of observations and inferences. And no matter how much they see, there’s always more; nature’s bounds are limitless. A former insect collector myself, I remember buying countless butterfly nets and caterpillar “homes.” I remember the excitement of waking up to find that a gypsy moth had emerged from its cocoon and was ready to fly out. My love for insects evolved into a love for reptiles, specifically snakes. I suddenly wanted to know all I could about them—their anatomy, their behavior, their diet, their interactions with other animals—everything. But science as a class in school wasn’t nearly as exciting.

Having science teachers in middle school and high school just talk science at their students is not an effective approach in maintaining peoples’ interest in science. A pure hour-long lecture of facts is just going to deter most people from listening—never mind retaining the information. Once the stigma of science being a daunting, boring subject is in place, most peoples’ perspectives are not easily reversible. What’s sad is so few people are actually exposed to the fun side of science when they are learning it in the classroom.

Once people can no longer involve themselves in science and experience things firsthand, a disconnection is established. Perhaps science writers need to do some extra research and find nearby activities related to what they are writing about—opportunities for firsthand exposure to science. If you’re writing about the poor water conditions in the area, include details about the nearby river cleanups going on that people can attend. If you’re writing about cancer research, let people know where the nearest cancer centers are that they can volunteer at to learn more information. Science is a field that must stay hands-on to maintain its grip on those who are interested.