Article reflection
The article “Responsible Use of Language in Scientific Writing and Science Communication” by Christoph Kueffer and Brendon M. H. Larson is an expert biologist article published in BioScience in 2014. The article aims to provide rules for the appropriate use of metaphors in scientific literature and communication since they can affect how the public interprets science and data. Based on the article, biologists ought to use greater caution and critical thinking when it comes to the metaphors and rhetorical strategies they employ when explaining their research and conclusions to the general public. The authors contend that metaphors impact how science is viewed and comprehended by various audiences and have moral, cultural, and political ramifications. According to the article, scientists are increasingly turning to persuasive metaphors and marketing techniques to publicize their findings, secure funding, and sway policymakers. However, this might taint the public’s opinion of their objectivity and hinder the efficient dissemination of trustworthy scientific information. Metaphors can convey value-laden judgments, establish biases, and frame concerns in particular ways that may limit alternate perspectives or alternatives, so they should be cautiously selected and analyzed with scientific facts. The authors propose a set of standards, including diversity, precision, relevance, coherence, clarity, and receptivity, for using and applying metaphors in science writing and communication. They also give some illustrations of biological metaphors and their applications.
On the other hand, the article titled “Extending the Reach of Science – Talk in Plain Language” by Cassie Sedgwick and colleagues was published by Epilepsy and Behavior Reports in October 2021. The article offers various techniques and pointers for writers to enhance their communication abilities and discusses the significance and difficulties of creating lay summaries for scientific journals. The article provides multiple tactics and pointers on how scientific authors might produce good lay summaries, including avoiding slang, streamlining text, employing the active voice, utilizing positive language, streamlining titles, obtaining feedback, and gauging readability. According to the article, scientists can enhance public involvement and faith in science, raise the significance and accessibility of their work, and better convey their research to a broader demographic by creating lay summaries.
Both articles provide relevant, reliable, illustrative examples and facts to support their claims. They give helpful insights and suggestions for enhancing scientific literature and communication and show that they have a solid grasp of both their topic and target audience. The writers of “Extending the Reach of Science – Talk in plain language” provide examples and facts to support their claims, drawing from their analyses of scientific articles and personal encounters as lay writers. They include information and figures demonstrating lay summaries’ advantages for raising the public’s awareness and understanding of scientific research, along with the difficulties and obstacles preventing their general use. In addition, they offer helpful pointers and recommendations for creating successful lay summaries, including how to stay away from jargon, simplify the content, utilize the active voice, employ positive language, simplify titles, solicit comments, and determine readability. They provide instances of both poor and excellent lay summaries to support their arguments, along with suggestions for improvement.
In addition, in the paper “Responsible Use of Language in Scientific Writing and Science Communication,” writers include examples and data from various biological domains and disciplines, including synthetic biology, invasive biology, and ecological biology, to bolster their claims. They provide pertinent research and literature demonstrating how metaphors affect public perception and scientific comprehension. Along with discussing the benefits and drawbacks of these metaphors, they also give specific instances of terms that are frequently used in biology, such as “invasive species,” “genetic modification,” and “biological diversity.” They recognize the drawbacks and difficulties of their methodology, including the difficulty in locating impartial and truthful metaphors and the necessity for additional empirical study on the impact of metaphors on science communication.
As a student, these articles are beneficial to my learning. Through these articles, I might gain knowledge on how to assess the value and impact of lay summaries written by others, as well as how to better effectively and ethically present my findings to a larger audience. Additionally, I might learn more about science communication’s ethical and social implications and how to handle and steer clear of potential problems and conflicts. Also, I might get an appreciation for and assessment of the applicability and reliability of scientific knowledge to my life and society, as well as learn how to boldly and constructively voice my questions and ideas.
In conclusion, both publications discuss the significance and difficulties of disseminating scientific information to various audiences, including the general public, decision-makers, and fellow scientists. Additionally, they offer some rules and illustrations on writing and employing metaphors in a responsible, correct, and understandable manner. However, the articles should examine and promote the advantages and opportunities of interacting with audiences and viewpoints from various disciplines when it comes to scientific literature and communication. This will demonstrate how scientists and science writers work with other interested parties to jointly develop and share scientific information more inclusively, inventively, and interactively.
References
Kueffer, C., & Larson, B. M. (2014). Responsible use of language in scientific writing and Science Communication. BioScience, 64(8), 719–724. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu084
Sedgwick, C., Belmonte, L., Margolis, A., Shafer, P. O., Pitterle, J., & Gidal, B. E. (2021). Extending the reach of science – talk in plain language. Epilepsy & Behavior Reports, 16, 100493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebr.2021.100493
write