Hey CC,
I was not sure where this discussion would fit best, but I picked the graduate school forum because I think that it is most likely to have current PhD’s/undergraduate upperclassmen in science fields who may have good insight.
I’m a biochemistry freshman and I’m just starting to have to read and actually understand a lot of research papers for my extracurricular lab work and a project-based lab course I am taking this semester.
And, as I start to see more and more flaws in the way that popular news articles portray scientific research - often exaggerating the importance of impactful but minor advancements, for example - it begs the question: why aren’t research papers accompanied by simplified explanations for non-specialists?
With the amount of time it takes to write a research paper, it seems like writing a one-page summary at a 9th/10th grade reading level would be fairly easy, but have a huge impact on the impact of science on the general population.
But, at this point, I’ve also learned that I rarely think of anything that has not been thought of before.
Which is where you come in.
Why does this not happen? Would it be a good idea to start?
Thanks,
J
In part, I think it goes back to the fact that research papers themselves are often written with needlessly complex vocabulary and dense jargon. Many researchers and authors continue to write papers this way because it’s the status quo, while many others do so to intentionally to make their work sound more intellectual or meaningful. Not everyone does this, of course–there are also those who try to use simple, clear language as much as possible, but these individuals seem to be in the minority. Either way, it’s an epidemic that serves to make research less accessible to the lay public. This article from The Atlantic (“The Needless Complexity of Academic Writing”) discussed it somewhat recently:
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/complex-academic-writing/412255/
Regarding the idea itself, I would be all for it, but it tends to be difficult to build consensus and implement things like this in academia.
This is an excellent, excellent question, and it makes me hope you go into scientific research and make simplifying scientific communication your life’s mission.
There are a lot of answers, but the major reason is that scientists write their journal articles for other scientists and not for the public. Publications are the currency of the field - the number and quality of them are how you get a job, how you get promoted and how you get tenure, as well as recognition and grants. So scientists write them in part to communicate their results to other scientists and partly to gain these accolades for themselves. The result is that the language they use is used to appeal to other scientists, not to the public. (And the language policing is pretty heavy in the field; I’ve been dinged in article reviews several times for using language deemed “too casual.” One time I was told using the phrase “researchers should definitely…” was too casual.)
On the other hand, scientists have no motivation or reward for writing a short summary of their work or even making their language more accessible to the public. As a matter of fact, they may get dinged in their article reviews, or they may be judged as less intellectual for using accessible language. Scientists tend to value obtuse jargon and language rather than clear, well-written papers.
The good news is that some agencies are trying to remedy this. the National Institutes of Health requires that all scientific articles that are based upon science funded by them be made publicly available, and all grants you submit to the NIH have to be accompanied by an abstract and a public health impact section that is written in plain English that can be read by non-scientists. There are some scientists (a small group) who are advocating for open access journals (aka, scientists - or their grants - pay a fee so that the journals can make the articles available to anyone, not just people who pay the exorbitant subscription rates or who have access to an academic library) and for more accessible language and less jargon in scientific papers.
If you have the opportunity and are interested, please get involved in this at the undergraduate level! Involvement in scientific communication to the public is important, and it’s also a valuable criteria that can give you an advantage if you ever apply for a research fellowship (like if you decide to get a PhD and apply for an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, for example.) It can be as simple as writing science lessons for elementary school kids or sponsoring a science fair for high schoolers or working with local newspapers to write accurate and ethical science articles.
Here is one movement to at least put the Title of the research into popular language.
http://lolmythesis.com/
@BrownParent That’s awesome. And hilarious. Definitely more for fun than to actually make an impact on the availability of research to the public, but still badass.
Had dinner with a small group of people through my scholarship program today - included our first Rhodes Scholar (A lot of focus on Race & Education Equality), one of our Goldwater recipients (Lots of sciency/medical stuff), and the director of our program. Since they had interests relevant to this question, I went ahead and brought it up at the table.
They rolled with it for a while. Concluded that, in the end, cooperate interests which critique simplified research in ways that benefit their industry are a major obstacle to overcome. Most research is federally funded, after all. And, once science becomes easy to understand, it also becomes easier to succumb to the influence of money.
I had barely even thought about the issue of money & power in public education (outside of basic things like the food pyramid and such). Lots to learn.
This is actually an issue I’ve been working with lately. I’ve started a project aimed at that intermediate place you’re describing: between the sensationalism of popular science articles and the jargon of the original research. I’ve got a team of about 20 Marshall Scholars working on it, because when I brought it up, they were all frustrated by this gap as well. We’re currently iteratively drafting articles to find the sweet spot in terms of complexity. It turns out its hard to nail down who your audience is (and what kind of background you can expect them to have) with something like this, and that’s part of why I think there hasn’t been much in this domain, as well.
FWIW, I just submitted an article a couple weeks ago and the journal required along with my submission a short paragraph summary written at the introductory undergrad level. I believe it’s only used if the article garners any press, not automatically included when the article is printed. The NIH isn’t alone in terms of grants requiring descriptions of the work at a more accessible level. I had to do that as well last year for a grant I submitted for funding from a charitable organization.
I also think some of the issues regarding poor communication about science is intentional by the lay press. Most research articles published are not generating “newsworthy” findings to the general public. If the lay press can spice it up by overstating the impact of the work, they get more clicks/reads which means more ad money. This is particularly the case when a successful animal model or cell based treatment works and you get headlines about how scientists have “discovered a cure.” The general public isn’t interested in reading about how a drug worked in an artificial animal model and more likely than not will fail in clinical trials.
You’re definitely right - sensationalized news sells. (A problem not limited just to science, actually.) I think part of the problem is that the public also has unrealistic expectations of what science does and what the results are. If there’s a slow cranking up of the hype machine, really becomes more and more boring and the public becomes disconnected from research. We need to find a way to show how the real results are interesting and relevant without going 3,000 miles past what the results actually say.