Writing a science article is a bit like coaxing a 5-year-old into eating foie gras. Upon seeing the plate, the kid will become suspicious. He will complain about the color, poke the spongy texture and make a few skeptical faces. He must be spoon-fed the first couple of bites. If he likes it, you’re lucky. More often, you simply realize a 5-year-old won’t eat foie gras and maybe jumping straight from chicken nuggets to duck livers wasn’t the best idea.
Science journalism follows a similar path. In the middle of a technological revolution, the sheer complexity of science can be overwhelming for those with a minimal science background. The days of exploding fake volcanoes with egregious amounts of baking soda are long gone; most of us now see a paper with 10-letter words ending in “-ium” and “-ological” and go running for the nearest class in ancient Greek (that must be easier, right?).
And yet, the things happening out in the world of science are really cool. A few current examples: creating an invisibility cloak, 3D-printing human bone, spacecraft leaving our solar system, reverse-evolving a chicken into a dinosaur and the first successful bionic eye implant. But how do we convey these incredible discoveries and the technology responsible for them to a public for whom reading “science” risks blunt-force trauma with a dictionary full of incomprehensible words?
Give a warm welcome to your new science teacher, Professor Media.
In the golden age of online technology, one glance at a Twitter newsfeed produces enough fascinating articles for a week’s worth of classes. At the same time, the plethora of information puts more pressure on journalists to hook a reader with their first line. Fail to do so, and that reader can just click the next URL on the list.
To plug into readers’ psychology, journalists must figure out what will catch a reader’s eye: what’s interesting to one person won’t be to the next. In politics, the zeitgeist becomes clear pretty quickly. In science, however, with so much longitudinal research happening, often under the radar, it can be difficult to sift through the information and choose what to investigate.
The key? Relevance.
I want to hone in on an article The Cavalier Daily published this week. On March 26, Tori Meakem writes, ““University lab develops faster ID procedures for sexual assault cases.” It explores the partnership between a University chemistry professor and forensics labs in order to design a new technology that may alleviate the challenge of processing DNA samples from sperm cells. The article could have appeared at any time: Meakem reveals no major breakthroughs, but instead covers ongoing research the professor “hopes to see … widely used in forensics labs within two to three years.”
And yet, the article appeared now. That fact should not be understated. In the last month, public focus on rape culture has burgeoned. With the Steubenville case in Ohio flooding the media, the status of sexual-assault attitudes in our society is at the forefront of readers’ minds. Most articles take a political or cultural approach to the issue, examining court case decisions and procedures, legal and social ramifications and controversial partisan values.
Meakem’s article provides an entirely new angle. Refreshingly original, it adds to a politically charged debate a relevant and optimistic outlook, weaving science into a broader societal conversation. Most significantly, the article does not force the connection between current events and science, but lets the timing speak for itself. This is strong, intelligent reporting: a clear choice to identify a significant issue and analyze it anew with the aim of making science relevant to the wider community. Such articles cajole readers into the oft-neglected science section of the paper.
I do want to make one note on the article itself. I emphasized earlier the difficulty of translating science to the public. When explaining research that contains a prominent lab component, it becomes crucial to sugarcoat it with clarity. This does not mean avoiding scientific phrases, but rather making an extra effort to explain them in laymen’s terms. Not everyone knows what “epithelial cells” are; this should become clear in the first paragraph, not the middle of the article through inference. Clearer explanation of centrifugation — the current process for DNA analysis — could also have helped underscore the significance of this new strategy.
I hold this article up overall as a great example of thoughtful, fresh reporting. I commend “Science cafes come to Charlottesville” (March 26) for similar success in advocating for ways to increase laymen comprehension. Engagement with science is incredibly valuable. Journalists should not shy away from the challenge of explaining it. Unfortunately, many people today need to be convinced to read science. So, give them a tempting stepping-stone: graduate to barbequed chicken before the foie gras.
Ashley Stevenson is The Cavalier Daily’s public editor. Contact her at publiceditor@cavalierdaily.com with concerns and suggestions about how The Cavalier Daily could improve its coverage.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
