Scientists spend their entire educational training learning the facts, mastering the techniques, and critically evaluating the research. The highly organized structure of the scientific method allows for good, reproducible science to be published. But on a larger scale, what use is science when it is not communicated effectively? Science students are typically taught that the responsibility of learning is placed solely on the listener to figure out what the teacher is saying, not that the teacher needs to ensure effective explanations. This leads to many different interpretations that may not be accurate. As illustrated in Kaj Sand-Jensens’ satirical article “How to write consistently boring scientific literature” there is an apparent problem with how science is being communicated. An appropriate explanation for one audience may not be suitable for another audience. Even between two scientists in different fields, explaining your results may seem like speaking a different language.
In my “Science, Explained” posts I hope to tell a story of scientific inquiry. Whether I discuss a general topic or a specific paper, I want to bring the reader on the scientist’s journey of experimental discovery (or failure), and translate jargon-filled academic papers to relatable stories that everyone can enjoy. There’s some really exciting science happening out there, and everyone should be able to access it.