Recently, I went to an event in which Bill Nye talked about how science is communicated to the public in the age of the Internet. He said “In the age of the internet, there is a vast amount of information about science on any number of topics. But unfortunately the quality in that information is much lower than it used be.” As much good, scientific information here is out on the Internet, there is equal amounts of bad science being spread and served up as fact. A great way to combat the spread of bad scientific information is to push good science onto the public in an entertaining and easy to digest format so that people can apply what they’ve learned in a meaningful way. One of the best ways I have seen this done is through YouTube.

Two channels that are particularly interesting are SciShow, and MinutePhysics. These two channels are prime examples of excellent scientific communication that is detailed enough, yet also explained so flawlessly and simply that your average person can understand it.

SciShow is a popular YouTube channel created by Hank Green who is also the main presenter of the channel. Him, along with two other partners aim to educate the public on a wide range of scientific topics. There is no specific theme to their channel, only that it is all about science, answering science questions, and discussing science current events. Their target audience varies; it’s mostly targeted the average person with a bit of interest in science. However, they try to get people interested in science by answering frequently asked questions, scientifically.

The lengths of Scishow videos vary but are generally short, about 2-10 minutes depending on the category of the episode. I feel this helps keep a general audience’s attention while still giving enough time to put in significant information. As far as their sources go, it’s a mix of primary and secondary sources such as, scientific articles, encyclopedias, and papers. The format of the videos are usually a single speaker talking (usually Hank Green) and trying to engage you in discussion and using pictures.

I think SciShow is one of the most successful science video series aimed at the general public. It’s interesting, engaging, and overall very informational! One of their most recent successes is a series called, “The World’s Most Asked Questions!” in which they answered 10 of the world’s most Googled scientific questions. It was a huge success and I learned a lot from watching it. I learned how to stop the hiccups, how many calories I should eat in a day and what energy is. This series and their “Quick Questions” series are some of their most successful material on YouTube purely because of the format. They are short, condensed videos that answer broad general questions using science rather than speculation. I must say that overall SciShow is a great success, there isn’t much I can say to improve upon it. Sometimes I find myself craving more information after one of their short two minute videos, but that’s really the only complaint I have. I’ve watched them religiously over the past three years they’ve been on YouTube and I continue to watch their other spin-offs like SciShow Space.

MinutePhysics is another popular YouTube channel that has a more central theme; physics. The channel was created by Henry Reich, who is the sole announcer on his videos, unlike SciShow where there can be multiple speakers. MinutePhysics really sets itself apart by virtue of the format of Reich’s videos. His main goal is to very simply explain important concepts in physics and math and how they can relate to our questions about our world. On his channel he has a quote, which sums up his goal, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t know it well enough.” He reaches this goal by keeping his videos very short. The length ranges from 10 seconds to 4 minutes. He uses time-lapsed drawings, that he does himself, to illustrate his narration throughout the video. This really keeps the watcher interested not just in what he’s saying, but how he’s illustrating it. Since he explains things so simply, his main target audience is mainly people who have little knowledge on physics and are willing to learn a little more.

As far as success, I feel MinutePhysics is really successful. I personally watch MinutePhysics on my own time and it really has taught me a lot! One of my favorite videos is “How to See Without Glasses.” I actually use the information I learned in that video in real life, and it has helped me out when I forgot my glasses. The video explained how your eyes focus light and how lenses work. He explained that if you make a really tiny hole with your fingers and you look through it, you could actually help focus the light into your eyes if you’re having trouble seeing things from far away. It was fascinating to learn the physics behind light and focusing light, and to feel I learned something applicable to my life. My only complaint is that I would like to see where his sources are listed. I’ve looked throughout his YouTube channel and couldn’t find a source list, while SciShow posts their source list below every video. But, the fact that I can learn why the sky is blue and how Radar’s work in 10 seconds is amazing! Reich really can boil down complicated physics explanations into short nuggets and that’s what I really enjoy about his channel.

Over all, I think both mediums are really successful at reaching a broad audience through their videos. Our generation would rather watch an engaging video than read a wall of text. The general public also tends to have a short attention span, so since these videos are in small doses that keep things interesting, people are much more likely to digest that information. That is really their biggest commonality, the fact that their short videos are really successful. I will continue to watch these channels, as I have been doing, and continue to learn a little more science every day.

Computer science is often viewed in an extremely biased lens by the public. More often than not, media misconstrues this science by making it seem as if it is all about hackers and stealing bank account information, meanwhile this is a field that dips its toes into theory and application, making it more logical and elaborate than it is portrayed. Fortunately there is the internet and there are resources that can detail what the heck computer science is for those who are advanced and those who know nothing at all. Two blogs that display honest, yet very different aspects of this discipline include Troy Hunt’s security blog and Aaron Roth’s Computational Theory class blog. While these blogs might be trivial to anyone outside the computer science field, these two sites disseminate several vastly distinct, but accurate sides of computer science.

There are a variety of fields within in the broad topic of computer science which makes the community of blogs related very diverse and vivid. Troy Hunt is well-versed in security and was even awarded Microsoft Most Valuable Professional for Developer Security, thus the overarching theme of Hunt’s blog is technological security. He discusses very hands-on security topics that are accessible to people who have a computer and internet and he seeks to inform people about security issues as well as try to get more people interested in technological security. I would say he is very successful at informing and keeping his audience engaged and excited for more (at least I am always excited to read new posts). Hunt does not just simply drone on about hackers and security, rather he elaborates on why said bug, virus or hack is an issue, provides some technological background information, describe the implications of the issue, provide other sources on the subject matter and sometimes even suggests fixes. For this reason, this blog caters to anyone in the tech field or anyone who works on tech for any type of company, but the information is clear and straightforward enough to appeal to the layperson tinkering in tech fields. The most interesting thing I learned from his blog was in and outs of the recent Bash bug. This is a bug that has been in Unix systems that use Bash for nearly 20 years and it makes it extremely simple for someone to compromise your system. Hunt is very established in the world of technological security and that shows in his blog, conveys the more applicable, understandable and concrete side of computer science.

Conversely, Aaron Roth is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and is knowledgeable of computational and theoretical aspects of computer science, thus his blog is vastly more academic and scientific/mathematical than Hunt’s. In fact, Roth’s blog is about the world of computation and problem solving. It was actually meant for the students in his class and serves as a means to go over and elaborate topics covered in his class as well as provide some background to computational theory outside of the classroom. Its target audience is definitely his students, but it is also accessible to other computer science students taking a similar course elsewhere. Roth also frequently sources where he gets his content from to redirect his students to the works of other computer scientists, professors and engineers. The main purpose of this blog seems to be to provide a huge amount of information to his student. For his intents and purposes, he is definitely successful. For someone whose not entirely invested in entirely understanding this subject, it will be difficult to read through his post due to the excessive jargon used that might take someone aback. Fortunately, Roth is gracious in providing lots of technical know how and information on this really abstract topic. If possible, the best way to correct his is by potentially creating a separate blog going into similar topics, but making it more engaging, less verbose, and directed towards the layperson. I personally found myself confused because he approaches problem solving in a level that I am not quite at yet, but it certainly has been helpful in keeping an open mind when it comes to problem solving and learning about algorithms. All in all this blog does well in conveying information to students studying computer science despite the focus on logical and abstract topics. To put it simply, this blog disseminates the logic and problem solving aspect of the computer science field.

Many people interested in going into this field have a very picturesque image of computer science, especially with how the media portrays computer science with news and movies (Hackers [1995]), but that is not remotely close to what computer science is all about, rather it is a delicate balance in application and theory. One blog, by Troy Hunt is strongly based security, application oriented side of computer science, meanwhile Aaron Roth’s blog gives a more academic and theoretical aspect of this field revolving around computational theory.

References:

http://www.troyhunt.com/

http://aaronsadventures.blogspot.com/

http://impulse.coreatcu.com/opinions-insights/2014/10/30/hacker-culture-bank-account-mine/

As information technology grows and develops the list of ways we can communicate with each other grows at a rapid rate. We suddenly have ways of reaching others we could never have imagined and the implications are innumerable. Today I took a look at one form of communication, YouTube videos, and specifically how the platform is being used to reach and educate the scientific community. I reviewed two channels, MinutePhysics and Periodic Videos, focusing on the ways in which each channel conveyed their information and the purpose for each channel as a whole.

To begin we will point our attention to MinutePhysics, (http://bit.ly/LxHWtS) a YouTube channel created in 2011, run by Henry Reich a current resident at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. The first thing you notice when watching any of MinutePhysics’ videos is the presentation, short videos with a whiteboard and marker art style. Each of MinutePhysics’ videos is done in about three minutes time and not in live action, but with drawings that are paired with a voiceover explaining the science in each video. This channel clearly has a very general audience as it tries to make its videos short and sweet while keeping the viewer entertained with the drawings. In addition to this, each video attempts to shy away from the complicated vocabulary of the science world and convey many different science phenomena in ways we can understand. Every once in a while the channel does videos relating science to pop culture, such as the “How Far Can Legolas See?” video (http://bit.ly/1w5zmCM) which again re-enforces the idea that these videos are made for everyone. Since there is obviously so much effort put into making the videos appeal to a wide audience the purpose of the channel is clear, to get the general public interested in science and show that science can be interesting. In the end the channel accomplishes its purpose. The wide range of topics covered along with the presentation of each video allows the viewer to be thoroughly engaged while they actually learn something. If I held any qualms about the videos it would be that he tends to speak very fast while presenting. To improve I would only slow down the presentation speed a small amount so that you don’t miss a thing. I would absolutely watch more videos from this channel, as I was entertained to the fullest extent of the word.

The second channel I analyzed was Periodic Videos, (http://bit.ly/1qybB4z) a channel started in 2008 and run by Professor Martyn Poliakoff of Nottingham University, a professor in chemistry. Instantly you can see the videos from this channel are immensely different than those of MinutePhysics. The presentation for this channel is live action. Instead of the drawings of Minute Physics, Periodic Videos has Professor Poliakoff talking to you directly on camera, sometimes having his colleagues join him for certain topics. The videos on this channel tend to be longer than those MinutePhysics with average video length being about 6-7 minutes. The longer length of Periodic Videos’ videos allows for a bit more in depth discussion about different topics. The length of these videos also allows for live demonstration of the different scientific phenomena discussed. Since the presenter is a current chemistry professor at a distinguished university, the videos tend to be more complex in terms of the science explained. Because of the added complexity the intended audience is more narrow than that of MinutePhysics, where you may be able to watch most if not all of MinutePhysics’ videos with no scientific background at all, it helps to know a small amount of chemistry going into each of Periodic Videos’ submissions so that you can take more from each video. The slight issue I hold is that the videos of this channel are not as easily accessible, that being said, if you do have some knowledge of very basic chemistry the videos on the Periodic Videos channel are very successful in teaching you about the topic discussed. As a person with some knowledge of basic chemistry I was intrigued and would surely watch more of the videos.

In the end, both channels succeed in their respective purposes. MinutePhysics does a great job in explaining science to a wide audience and Periodic Videos does its part in teaching chemistry with the added benefit of some cool live demonstrations. Both channels succeed in bringing science to the world, and show how important communication is when it comes to the scientific community.

Today, it is easy to disseminate information to the public through online blog sites, but often information can be misleading or incorrect.  Often people will stick to widely known sources for news, but how do you know if these sources are trustworthy?  It’s important to understand the purpose of science communication sources and the type of information they release.

Two popular and widely recognized forms of science communication to the general public are TED and The New York Times.  Both share current research and bodies of thought that are important and of interest to the public.  They focus on releasing well-developed and informative content on topics around the world and created by a diverse range of people.  Specifically, we will focus on how science content is delivered through these sources.

TED focuses on creating intriguing, though-provoking videos of various topics by people in diverse backgrounds and fields.  It was created in 1984 as a Technology, Entertainment and Design conference and has since grown to encompass other fields and languages.  Their purpose is to “spread ideas” and so often any science focused videos are of on-going or groundbreaking findings by scientists in “18 minutes or less” according to the site, though some videos to go over.

Content Creation. Periodically speakers are chosen to present their research at conferences where their TED talks are recorded and then uploaded on TED.com for anyone to view free.  Talks are a mixture of storytelling, photos, videos, and interactive presentations.

Although speakers are screened, not all talks are of the same format or presentation quality.  It is important to note that TED Talks are mainly new and on-going information so what is being presented may have changed since the videos have been recorded. Talks do not build off one another or are edited to reflect newer changes.  These videos are meant to spark interest on various topics that often one will need some background on or look further into afterwards.

TED conferences are also independently run by various organizations, including colleges like CUNY.  Like TED run conferences, they are often themed and include speakers from different walks of life to share their work and view points.  If you are interested in attending one, TEDxCUNY is happening on Nov 16th at the Macaulay Building. Get more information.

The New York Times appears in both digital and print, which started in .  While issues surrounding science are written about throughout the week, on Tuesdays there is a specific section in the paper dedicated to science.  Unlike TED, articles are released much more frequently, but can be segmented since the information is often time sensitive and very specific.  Articles also often focus on social, economic, and political issues that surround the scientific areas of discussion.  While TED focuses on ideas, NYTimes tends to focus on relevancy of information to certain areas and people since it is a news outlet.  The media they share is mainly in written word, but can include visuals such as diagrams, photos, and video.

The New York Times develops most of its own content, but also aggregates articles from other news outlets like Associated Press and other Times publications.

Content creation. Articles are written by selected journalists, both part of NYTimes and freelance by editors.  Articles are written typically after research and relevant interviews are made.  Some articles are opinion pieces, while others are written in review of new research. There are on staff media teams that develop relevant visuals like interactive diagrams, videos, and photos for each article.  Length depends on the importance of the pieces and the information available, but often do not exceed more than a few pages for the ease of the reader.

While NYTimes content is researched and reviewed by editors, there are sometimes misprint issues that arise.  The New York Times website is a great place to check articles to see if any amendments have been made about incorrect information or explanation.  It also critiques scientific findings more than TED Talks will do since the writers are not typically the researchers who tend to present in TED Talks.

Looking at Melting Ice 

James Balog, an engineer turned field photographer/researcher/advocate, created a project and documentary that focused on sharing information about global warming and the very prevalent evidence of the melting of bodies of ice.  His time-lapse work shows the increasing decrease of ice coverage.  The 1 hour, 15 minute film was covered by both TED and New York Times.

TED Talks released a blog post about the film including a 20 minute TED Talk by James Balog that focused on his research.  Compared to the movie, the video condensed Balog’s work and focused more on the findings.  While not in-depth, the talk focuses on gaining people’s attention and agreement that indeed climate change is occurring.

The New York Times in contrast had two short articles that reviewed the work that James Balog did in the form of a movie review and interview with the documentary’s director.  Here, the focus is not on the findings, but rather the scope of the movie and how it is portrayed.  In this case, the New York Times is a poor source of information about Balog’s scientific work.

Conclusion

What both sources of science content do well is attempt to spark interest in science topics by delivering content in very colloquial language and using intriguing methods of displaying information.  While neither tend to go in-depth into the nitty-gritty of certain studies, they are a great way of spreading recent findings in quick, digestible bites.  If you want to be inspired and get a taste at certain scientific research, check out TED Talks.  If you want to learn about current topics of discussion, check out the New York Times Science Section.  If you want a resources of finding quality, recent content, visit both.

As a student in the competitive world of collegiate level education, often the lessons from a classroom setting do not provide enough information needed to pass a class. Sometimes information is not provided at all and supplementary material soon turns into the primary source of education. Today, the internet has allowed for the spread of knowledge to transcend the barriers of time and space and reach those that cannot even afford the privilege of higher education. Internet platforms such as Youtube have given rise to virtual means of receiving tutoring and allowing for knowledge to be projected visually. Popular channels on the website on “homework help” and science channels include Khan Academy and Veritasium. Each of these channels have millions of subscribers and viewers that reap the benefits of the viral platforms that produce intriguing and informational videos.

The creator of Khan Academy, Salman Khan, did a TED Talk in 2011 describing his rise to fame in a very humble and humorous speech. The Youtube homework help monger described his humble beginnings and intentions behind the channel to a live audience. The larger audience of the TED Talk and the recipients of his viral academic teachings are the worldwide web. His target audience is anyone who is willing to learn and is having difficulty with topics that are regularly taught in schools such as math, chemistry, physics, etc. His videos attract a variety of age groups, mostly students who look for other means of enriching their education or seek simplified explanations for complex topics. Mr. Khan provides the backdrop of most of the videos by drawing out problems and providing a voice over explanation of his every move. His source of information is his own mind and his own academic pursuits that have given him the multifaceted knowledge he possesses. Mr. Khan is a graduate of MIT and Harvard and has allowed for millions of people to enroll in his version of an academy that actually teaches step by step concepts broken down into terms for laymen.

Similar to Mr. Khan’s endeavors, another Youtube channel has risen to fame by portraying complex phenomenas in the science field and explaining some of the world’s most perplexing scientific mysteries. The Veritasium Youtube channel boasts almost two million subscribers and continues to gain viewers on the daily. The host of the videos is Derek Muller, a physics engineer from Canada that enjoys creating intriguing science videos to peak the interests of his viewers from all across the globe. Parallels between Khan Academy and Veritasium lie in their purpose and intentions behind creating a platform available to the general public for educational purposes. Muller uses his own knowledge of physics to apply it to interesting subjects and perplexing phenomena that make for very entertaining youtube videos. Khan Academy videos are less entertaining and more informative, but strive to achieve the same goal of sharing their knowledge with those less fortunate in the educational sense. This being said, both mediums try to establish a visual platform that can be fast forwarded, rewinded, paused, and shared to not only convey information but also simplify complex topics that can often throw students off. The word “veritasium” comes from Latin roots that essentially mean “an element of truth.” Often truths of the world come in complicated forms that must be taken apart in order to fully understand. Both Veritasium and Khan Academy take this catabolic approach when producing videos for their audiences.

The two Youtube channels have gained critical acclaim and the attention of news channels worldwide that have showcased their success and effective ability to spread knowledge through Youtube. Each channel has gained millions of viewers on each of their videos and continues to produce videos to continue their original purpose. Their success lies in their creation of youtube channels that are easily accessible and humble in their intentions and delivery of information. Mr. Khan said that the beginnings of his channel sprouted from his cousins’ request to tutor them. He uploaded videos on calculus and decided there was no harm in leaving them to be public. He soon gained a fan following for his ability to teach information and convey intricate mathematical concepts won him a worldwide audience. Similarly Derek Muller began his youtube channel with a prime focus in mind. His focus is “addressing counter-intuitive concepts in science, usually beginning by discussing ideas with members of the public.”

With such perfection in the delivery and content of the two channels, it is hard to pinpoint an area for improvement. Perhaps Khan Academy could create videos that are not so black and white and apply their concepts to real world concepts and create visually stimulating videos like Veritasium; but for now, the simple videos projected on a black screen with vivid colors are satisfying enough for me. I absolutely love both channels and I have become somewhat of a loyal viewer myself. I would definitely take part in watching either channel’s youtube videos again as well as Mr. Khan’s Ted Talk. In conclusion, I appreciate both the viral platforms and respect their views on education without a price tag.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHnyfMqiRRG1u-2MsSQLbXA

Upon hearing the ted talk, Making Sense of Visible Quantum Objects featuring Aaron O’Connel, I became intrigued by the topic of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is one of the parts of physics that many people don’t necessarily understand. Basic high school physics mainly focuses on kinematics, magnetism, and electricity. Quantum, on the other hand, appears very esoteric and is barely touched upon. This talk gives a great introduction to the world of quantum physics. Although O’Connel didn’t explain exactly what quantum physics was, he went over one of the theories generated by quantum mechanics. What made this talk stand out was that he explained it all in a simple way that anyone could comprehend. He definitely picked the correct medium because he had the occasional diagram or picture that helped make sense of the many ideas that he passed on. What I found very cool was the fact that he took the ideas of quantum physics and brought it to larger scale objects. Quantum is only applied to lone particles, and since these particles are impossible to see, there are many complications. For many, there is this whole ‘seeing is believing’ idea that can hold us back. His experiment brings these things we can’t see to larger items, and his interest and care about this specific theory was made apparent through this talk. The main idea he focused on was the fact that an object can only be in one place at one time. This, however, is false when we look deeper into quantum physics. O’Connel creates an item and apparatus to perform this experiment made for single atoms and applies it to visible objects. He didn’t end up showing his data but instead dictates it to the audience. The way he ended the talk was astounding. By connecting this theory to human life, he brought a whole new aspect to the theory. He brought up questions about what would occur if humans were put in these same conditions and appear in multiple places. It was something that didn’t even occur to me. This talk captured my interest in quantum physics, and I intend to pursue research on this topic.
The first talk led me to want to find out more about quantum mechanics, so I watched Einstein Hated Quantum Mechanics. Brian Greene And Alan Alda Discuss Why. I expected it to be more about theories, but it turned out to be more about the life of Albert Einstein. Most of the information pertained to physics, but they always brought it back to Einstein. This talk seemed to me to be targeted to Einstein aficionados. A lot about the age at which he discovers everything came into play when they spoke about his theories. One of the more captivating moments of the talk was when Greene performed an experiment to give us a little more insight into the way in which Einstein thought. Apparently, going into free fall is a way to get rid of the force of gravity. Although this is only a matter of perspective, I recognize his standpoint. If two objects fall together, since they are experiencing the same force, it would appear that they are outside of the effects of gravity. While this was one of the more exciting moments of the talk, the rest appeared very mundane. A lot of the conversation explained why Einstein wasn’t a fan of quantum. All the explanations were not scientific but a matter of preference. This led me to question how they speculated on Einstein’s thoughts. Overall, I thought that this would have been better if they focused more on Einstein’s work rather than the history involved in it.

The way science is communicated in the media varies, more so than any other discipline, with the intended audience. Outside of scientific journals and technical literature, which cater directly to scientists, the gritty details of scientific papers are often left out. The wider the audience, generally speaking, the more diffuse the technical information.

However, that is not to say that scientific media outside of journals is somehow a lesser form of more technical literature. Many print and online publications feature a worthwhile ideological and conceptual insight into scientific principles and their significance. RadioLab is a prime example of such a publication. Each week, the hosts of RadioLab, Jad Abumrad  and Robert Krulwich, attempt to make sense of complicated scientific phenomena from an ethical, emotional and somewhat technical perspective. Some notable examples of past shows include Double Blasted: a story about cancer and the only man in history to be hit by both atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as Unraveling Bolero: a story about creativity, composer Maurice Ravel and his degenerative fronto-temporal dementia. In addition to weekly podcasts, the Radiolab blog features similarly themed articles like Mapping What You Cannot See, Cannot Know, Cannot Visit which discusses R. Brent Tully’s creation of a map of a 500 million light year across super cluster (which holds millions of millions of galaxies) in the context of Eratosthenes, the first man to calculate the circumference of the Earth in the ancient world. The article doesn’t simply recount a scientific achievement, instead it offers perspective on why it is so extraordinary to have a map so large—to truly understand our place in the universe. After all, in terms of geological time scale, it wasn’t long ago that our ancestors had no conception of place beyond the villages they could see in their lifetimes. Sedentary hunter gatherers had no notion of a continent, much less a planet or a galaxy, let alone millions of galaxies. This show casts a wide net, to be sure. Still, the way it blends equal parts of science, philosophy and human experience leaves one with enough technical knowledge to understand the science involved along with enough perspective to see its importance.

Possibly the complete antithesis of RadioLab is Mettler Toledo’s Chemical engineering blog, Chemical Research, Development and Scale-Up. This is a highly technical, career oriented blog. The people who frequent this site are Chemists and Engineers who wish to read about strategies to hone their craft. The article Best Practice For Inline Particle Size Characterization discusses how engineers can better optimize chemical suspensions, emulsions and crystallizations among other things. This blog entry in particular, actually links to a full fledged pdf profile of industry best practice with cited references. Clearly, this is an exploitable information resource for those who need it and not an entertaining exploratory analysis of science.

What is so interesting about science media is the diversity of the people who consume it. Unlike entirely technical, career-based pursuits like international law or finance, in science, central ideas of some study are often presented in mainstream media in such a way that they provoke interest and can be understood by the general public. Personally, I ascribe this difference science has with other technical pursuits to the efforts of publications like RadioLab. By retaining core concepts and shedding unnecessary technical information, RadioLab and publications of the like contribute greatly in bringing science to a much larger audience.

Relevant Links:

http://blog.autochem.mt.com/2013/04/best-practice-for-inline-particle-size-characterization/

http://www.mt.com/dam/non-indexed/po/autochem/Particle-US.pdf

http://www.radiolab.org/story/mapping-what-you-cannot-see-cannot-know-cannot-visit-kw/

Over the last few years, more and more attention has been brought to our American diet and the effect it has on our health. It’s no secret that America is overweight and unhealthy, with most deaths caused by gut-related diseases. Cultural diffusion has spread the idea of the fast and cheap American diet to the rest of the world, leading to a global health pandemic. Many science blogs have begun to focus on the American diet, it’s unfavorable effects, and how eating healthier can change lives.

A Washington Post blog post titled “How the American diet has failed” by Roberto A. Ferdman discusses how our fast food diet has greatly increased the amount of fats, oils, and processed grains we ingest daily. This increase in empty calories has increased the American waistline. Since these foods are cheap and fast to make, more and more of the American diet is based on these nutritionally empty calories. However, this contributes to health issues later in life and the billions of dollars spent in health care to combat it. This is why we must ask ourselves if a fast, cheap meal now is worth the hospital bills later in life.

This blog post is targeted toward the average American; it tries to raise our awareness to the dangers of our diet through graphs from the USDA. These graphs add visuals to the ideas expressed in the post, making it easy to understand. Ferdman does a great job of bringing awareness to the nutritionally deprived diet we all survive on. However, it would have helped if he had added ways to change the diet instead of only focusing on what the problem is.

In 2006, Dean Ornish gave a TED Talk titled “The killer American diet that’s sweeping the planet.” In his talk, he discusses the impact our diet has had on the rest of the world, with heart disease and obesity on the rise globally. However, changes to our diet can reduce and even reverse disease, as shown in a study of men with prostate tumors. Making healthier diet and lifestyle choices reduced the tumor growth by 70%. If preventing cancer is as easy as eating less processed foods, why isn’t everyone making an effort to improve their diet? If we made healthier diet choices, we could stop spending billions of dollars on preventable diseases and focus our resources on diseases such as AIDS and the flu.

Dean Ornish’s TED Talk is available free online on TED’s website. TED is a non-profit organization that promotes the spread of new ideas. Notable scholars in their respected fields present the short talks, and they are usually targeted toward more elite, intelligent, and ever-learning global community. Because of this, Ornish’s talk does a better job at exposing the dangers of diet to a more diverse community than the one focused on by Ferdman.

Through more research and the spread of the idea of a healthy diet, we as a country and a global community can begin to make healthy changes to our lifestyle, eventually changing the way we treat food and our bodies. The first step to preventing disease is to change the way you eat. If we all make the conscious decision to eat less processed food, we could see gut-related diseases become a thing of the past.

It is estimated that the number of Internet users will have reached almost 3 billion by the end of 2014. ¹ Approximately 87% of all American adults currently use the Internet.² With such a large population of Internet users, people have been using the Web as a platform for education. In particular, science education has been making its way to people through blogs and videos.

One popular science blog is IFL Science, which is a blog that is “dedicated to bringing the amazing world of science straight to your newsfeed in an amusing and accessible way.” ³ The blog mainly writes about the science-related current events news and interesting science facts about the world. It features a variety of different subdivisions of science, such as Chemistry, Physics, Health and Medicine, Technology, and The Brain. Though IFL Science has their own website, Facebook was their main way of garnering an audience for their blog.⁴ Their IFL Science Facebook page has well over 18 million fans. With so many followers, they provide a lighthearted approach to science-related topics and current events; just their latest post was titled “Apparently, Burning NH₄Cr₂O₇ With HgSCN Opens A Portal To Hell.”  The post includes a video of what seems to be the doorway to the underworld being created. The actual post goes on to explain the chemical reaction that occurs when the two compounds, ammonium dichromate and mercury (II) thiocyanate, is burned. The author of the post does not use many technical terms, which would suggest that her intended audience is for the general public. She does not, however, go into depth about the individual compounds, which might also suggest that she assumes the audience would have some chemistry background. The way this chemistry is presented is almost the opposite way general chemistry is taught in schools. In schools, students are taught the reactions, and then later shown what certain reactions would physically look like. The way the author presents information has much more of a shock factor – almost as if saying, “You see this crazy looking thing right here? Allow me to explain.”

While a text post on the mechanisms behind a chemical reaction is one way to present scientific information, another popular way may be through videos. AsapScience is a YouTube channel that focuses on answering random science questions from the Youtube community through animated drawings and voice-overs.⁵ The questions they answer range from “What if you stopped drinking water?” to “Why are babies so cute?”. The creators of the channel take these questions and try to use science to best answer these questions. Their most popular video answers the question “Which came first: the chicken or the egg?”⁷ The entire video uses hand-drawn animations to explain why technically, the egg came first. He has very few biology jargon in the video, and any technical terms he does use (such as “zygote”), he defines for the viewer. This would suggest that the intended audience is for the general public, regardless of whether the viewer has scientific knowledge or not. The animations were a lighthearted, clear and concise way to present the information to the viewer. Most of his videos are no longer than 5 minutes, and he is able to present a lot of information in such a short period of time.

Both IFL Science and AsapScience have very similar goals and do an excellent job at it: presenting scientific information in a manner that the general public would be interested in. Other than suggesting the portal to hell may have been discovered, a lot of IFL Science’s blog posts revolve around current events related to science. A recent post under their “Health and Medicine” tag was titled “Studies Reveal Health Risks of E-Cigarettes.” Another recent post under “The Brain Tag” is entitled “Learning New Words Activates The Same Brain Regions As Sex And Drugs.” This large range of topics indicates the variety of her intended audience. She concentrates more on showcasing scientific advancements that are being made in a way that people can understand and perhaps become more interested in. In the E-cigarettes post, she explains a number of studies that have shown evidence of harmful effects of vaping. AsapScience is more of an interactive platform, where people can actually ask the creators of the channel questions that the audience is curious about. Other popular videos on their channel include “Can You Erase Bad Memories”, “The Science of Depression”, and “The Science of Pornography Addiction” Again, a very large range of topics, suggesting a very large range of viewers. AsapScience seems to concentrate more on explaining the science behind topics to give viewers an understanding of the topics. In the pornography addiction video, he explains the mechanism behind the neurological cycle of addiction and how it relates to this problem.

Both the blog and the Youtube channel give the general public an interesting way to learn more about science. IFL Science uses current events as her way to attract people to learn about the behind-the-scenes science, whereas AsapScience directly interact with people and uses videos to answer people’s questions with science. IFL Science uses written blog posts as her main medium of presenting information, while AsapScience uses videos to present his information. As for which medium is better for presenting scientific information, it would really have to depend on the type of learner the audience is. I am a visual learner, so I take in information a lot more easily when things are drawn out for me. This makes me prefer AsapScience the slightest bit more. However, the way IFL Science presents her information allows me to be not only learn more about science, but also keeps me up to date on the latest news. It keeps me in the loop of whatever is happening in the scientific community. As a Biomedical Engineering student, it is so useful for me to have articles of new advancements written in a way that I could understand.

Claudia Donofrio

Science Communication Post: Psychology & Marketing Science

Psychology is often used in marketing to make a product more appealing and help suppliers obtain the greatest sum of money for their merchandise. By using certain psychological tricks like anchoring, marketing agents price and display items in a way that is deceptive to the average consumer. Both NPR’s Science Friday podcast and PsyBlog address this phenomenon. By discussing the reasons we tend to fall prey to certain psychological strategies, these science communication sites are both extremely successful in informing the general public about these facts. However, in terms of maintaining interest and providing particular tips to avoid social psychological tactics in marketing, the NPR Science Friday podcast ultimately is a more successful approach in science communication than a psychology blog.

In the NPR Science Friday podcast titled the “Psychology of Prices” columnist and author William Poundstone discusses his book Priceless: The Myth of Fair Value that researches the psychology behind pricing certain products for consumers. By examining a variety of scientific studies conducted on psychology and prices, Poundstone explains how suppliers mislead consumers into buying a product for a much more expensive price than the object’s actual worth. Social psychological strategies such as anchoring fool consumers in believing they are making an intelligent purchase. For example, when a car salesman states an initial or “anchor” price for a particular vehicle, he sets a ridiculously high value, knowing the outcome price the consumer will agree to will be marginally close to the anchored price. This is because psychologically the consumer will feel too uninformed and intimidated to argue the price down to an acceptable value and will lead himself to believe the anchor price is a reasonable starting point for negotiation.

While the “Psychology of Prices” podcast explains each psychology trick marketing agents use, it also provides its audience with useful tips to recognize ploys and avoid falling prey to marketing psychology. By comparing prices, and acknowledging when for example, a salesman is selling something worth $6 for $7.99 to make the item appear like it is on sale, consumers can make better decisions while shopping. While the podcast was meant for a group of people who normally listen and contribute to NPR the language in the podcast was suitable for an average person who does not know much about psychology. This is in part what made the podcast so successful in its purpose to convey information. By being informative, but casual in its approach, “Psychology of Prices” appeals to a wider audience than if Poundstone merely read from the research papers he examined. Another strength of the podcast was its interesting subject matter and relevance. Since we are all consumers, we all fall victim to marketing scams and therefore would want to use psychology to our benefit.

In the PsyBlog blog post “Why Do People Watch Scary Movies, Stay in Ice Hotels or Eat Bacon-Flavoured Ice-Cream?” psychologist and blogger Dr. Jeremy Dean examines similar psychological phenomena present in marketing. Looking at conceptual consumption, Dr. Dean explains what is so catchy about gimmicky products like bacon-flavored ice cream or hotels made of ice. He claims that people are not necessarily drawn to the value or importance of the product, but the concept surrounding it. Though we know that bacon-flavored ice cream is probably gross or that ice hotels are cold and overpriced, we as consumers are drawn to the novelty of those ideas and the unique experiences we get from them. This, the blog explains can lead us to make some wasteful spending choices.

The PsyBlog is well written and like the NPR podcast, targets the average consumer population. While its purpose is to inform consumers about the psychological factors affecting positive and negative conceptual consumption, the blog post does not necessarily state ways for people to avoid these behaviors. While simply addressing the problem can help consumers recognize future examples of conceptual consumption, the blog could have provided more solutions to the situation. Also in terms of relaying its information interestingly and for a larger audience to see, the PsyBlog was a little less successful. While the NPR podcast took callers’ questions and provided a discussion-based format for addressing the topic, the PsyBlog was rather limited in its abilities to creatively present and examine its information. Altogether though, the blog provided useful information and gave examples to keep readers interested, proving its overall success as an outlet for scientific information.

Thus, as can be seen in the NPR Science Friday podcast and the PsyBlog, scientific information can be successfully communicated to the general public through a variety of different medias or sources. Knowing this, scientists will hopefully be able to disseminate useful information, and keep communities informed as both scientific discovery and technology progresses further in the future.

My Sources:

NPR Science Friday “Psychology of Prices”

 http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/01/01/2010/the-psychology-of-prices.html

PsyBlog: “Why Do People Watch Scary Movies, Stay in Ice Hotels or Eat Bacon-Flavoured Ice-Cream?”

http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/04/why-do-people-watch-scary-movies-stay-in-ice-hotels-or-eat-bacon-flavoured-ice-cream.php

As more and more of our society is transplanted online, the efficacy of this move and resulting consequences need to be examined. Online education, specifically, has received a massive boon in recent years due to the constantly increasing amount of textbooks, literature, online courses, educational blogs, podcasts, and educational videos. At least 5.5 million students were estimated to have taken at least one online course in the fall of 2012. (IHE) A homeschooler could theoretically progress from kindergarten through college without ever leaving their house, with much of their learning coming from instructional videos from third party sources and their professors. Two large third-party sources of such videos are companies such PBS posting videos on the ever-prolific Youtube and a non-profit educational organization called Khan Academy.

While both organizations use online videos as their medium, they are fairly different. PBS publishes about 1 video every other week under an account called Braincraft. Braincraft focuses the topic of their videos to, well, the brain. They cover a wide range of topics, ranging from the Psychology Behind Accents to Telepathy. They use illustrations, speakers/announcers, doodles, and colorful animations to convey their information. Khan Academy, on the other hand, is a bit more formal. It almost exclusively covers core school topics such as Organic Chemistry, Biology, and Physics. Its videos are generally just a black screen that the speaker draws on while discussing the topic. This is much more reminiscent of an actual lecture in class where the teacher writes on the blackboard while instructing. Both seem to target those under the age of 25: Braincraft through its chosen distributor (Youtube) and informal instruction techniques, and Khan Academy though their adherence to topics largely studied at the instructional level by youth and young adults.

The ability of online instruction to actually instruct is a hot topic in the education sector today. While there are many proponents for it, there are many people adamantly against online instruction–or recent forms of technology as a medium for any sort of meaningful public discourse in general. One such dissident is Neil Postman. Although it’s not specifically about online videos, Postman’s point is very relevant to this discussion. In his book “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” he argues that the medium of discourse itself shapes the content. He uses Indian smoke signals as an example, asserting that concepts such as calculus or philosophy don’t exist in the medium of smoke signaling because it’s not possible to convey the full meaning through it. He argues when the media uses commercials, attractive young speakers, and theme music through mediums such as television (or the internet), it is presenting all information as entertainment. This would explain why we have had less and less conventionally unattractive presidents in recent years, or the rise of the “news of the day”—a concept that didn’t exist before modern technology enabled it to, and essentially makes things that don’t affect you at all important by making irrelevance relevant. The mediums of television (or the internet) seem to definitely be shaping the content and quality of our public discourse.

In the context of this argument, I would argue that Khan Academy does a better job at being an efficient and quality educational source than organizations on Youtube such as Braincraft. By keeping the topics constrained to what most students encounter in school, Khan Academy doesn’t contribute to the phenomena of making irrelevance relevant—whereas the viability of telepathy may not be something all students need to study in school. In addition, Khan Academy limits the use of animations, cartoons, or really anything other than drawing onto the electronic version of a blackboard. This drastically lowers the “entertainment” factor of the videos and keeps them focused on being educational. Finally, Khan Academy generally doesn’t show the speakers on their videos, while Braincraft is narrated by a young, attractive woman who is frequently shown on the cover of the videos or during the video itself. This also lowers distractions in the videos and makes Khan Academy’s videos more effective at educationally conveying information.

While both organizations are non-profits, it would appear that it is much more important to PBS that they attain high numbers of page views on their videos. Khan Academy seems to be more focused on strictly being an educational source, as shown by its abstinence from making its videos conventionally entertaining.  Thus, I would much prefer to use Khan Academy if I actually need to know something for school.

Relevant links:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/06/03/us-releases-data-distance-education-enrollments

http://zaklynsky.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/postman-neil-amusing-ourselves-to-death-public-discourse-in-the-age-of-show-business.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt_t6FwNsqr3WWoL6dFqG9w

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/evolution-and-natural-selection/v/introduction-to-evolution-and-natural-selection

Many institutions are conducting research into how a person’s looks show their level of trustworthiness. Some of the research being done is based on how a person’s specific actions and facial expressions give insight into whether or not they are being deceptive, such as in the Ted Talk “How to Spot a Liar.” Other research being conducted is to show how some people’s faces are naturally trustworthy or not, such as in the blog post “You Can Tell a lot from Looking at Someone’s Face.” Both science communications talk about trustworthiness, but the Ted Talk video discusses how to spot a liar while the blog post discusses predispositions to judgment.

“How to Spot a Liar” is a Ted Talk given by Pamela Meyer. Her talk targets the every day person who comes into contact with someone being deceitful, which according to her talk is everyone that you meet. She claims that a person is lied to anywhere between 10 and 200 times a day, and that you should be able to protect yourself from those attempting to deceive me. The point of Meyer’s talk is to equip people with the tools necessary for “liespotting”, such as body language that contradicts your words, defensiveness, or too much detail. Meyer is successful in her talk because she accurately describes deceitful behavior, gives video examples, and is clear with the purpose of her discussion. I found the video to be extremely informative and would most definitely watch it again.

You Can Tell a lot from Looking at Someone’s Face” is a blog post by Rita Handrich. Like the Ted Talk, this post targets the every day person. Handrich starts out the post by contradicting the common thought that eyes are what we base our trust on with showing photo examples of untrustworthy and trustworthy faces. According to her post, feminine and happy faces are more trustworthy than masculine and unhappy faces. She goes on to discuss how many people, such as politicians, men in the military, and businessmen, go farther in life because their faces seem to be more trustworthy. Handrich also examines how jurors judge how trustworthy a person’s face is when reaching their decision. I feel that the blog post was not as convincing as the Ted Talk because it did not give a lot of evidence or examples to support the claims made. If there were more examples of trustworthy faces or people, the post would be more convincing. I would most likely not read this post again, though I did find it initially interesting.

Both “How to Spot a Liar” and “You Can Tell a lot from Looking at Someone’s Face” gave interesting insights into how be perceive people that we come into contact with. “How to Spot a Liar” gave more information on detecting lies while “You Can Tell a lot from Looking at Someone’s Face” gave information on why we would think someone is a liar based on first impressions. Though both posts were on similar topics, they had different goals and methods of getting their point across. I think that “How to Spot a Liar” was a more successful form of science communication.

TED (technology, entertainment, design) is a multi-faceted company that runs a website where they upload content called TedTalks for the general public. PeriodicVideos is a Youtube channel where a group of scientists, mathematicians, physicists and videographers from the University of Nottingham come together to upload video content about chemistry and any recent events in the chemistry research world. Both media outlets serve a similar purpose: to educate through speeches or monologues for the general public and allow this information to be accessible as well. There are differences in some aspects of both media such as their audience, reliability, and potential.

TedTalks have two audiences in their videos: the audience within the video itself who listens and reacts to one main presenter and the audience watching online at home. TedTalks cater to those who are curious or interested in the topics that a pundit will present. As stated in their mission statement, “TED is a nonprofit devoted to spreading ideas, usually in the form of short, powerful talks (18 minutes or less).”¹ Their goal is to be able to take these audiences and help them understand and nurture their interests. PeriodicVideos has a similar audience except the videos they present are typically much shorter (5-10 minutes) and are strictly based around chemistry (although they do have many other Youtube channels for other topics such as physics and mathematics). PeriodicVideos also does not have the ability to physically see either their audience or how they react to what is presented because the videos are made solely to disseminate information as opposed to TedTalks where the presenters are restrained to the speech and presentation format. As a Youtube channel, PeriodicVideos is mostly informal which allows presenters to have a more relaxed nature in their speech. An important key to note is WHO exactly is dispensing the information.

Both media are trustworthy in their information because only experts of the field who are knowledgeable in what they do and what they know are given roles. In TedTalks, there are a wide variety of experts in all kinds of subjects whereas in PeriodicVideos there is Dr. Martyn Poliakoff² who is the main expert with only a handful of others who are all knowledgeable with chemistry in some way. Both types of experts who present the information are important because each of the media give a certain appeal to the audience. TedTalks and their myriad experts give a degree of validity and assurance to the audience who then are more willing to absorb information and learn. PeriodicVideos features Dr. Poliakoff’s face in almost every single video, which gives a sense of connection and familiarity to the audience. Many viewers who are looking for quick and fast information will prefer PeriodicVideos for their short length and informal manner; not only will the audience learn but they will also feel less academic pressure to learn. TedTalks, on the other hand, are for viewers who are deeply interested and would not mind listening to a lecture for more than 15 minutes.

However, the future potential of TedTalks outshines that of PeriodicVideos. TedTalks in their various fields and numerous pundits have several decades’ worth of videos to upload and reveal. Technically, their potential is infinite because with every talk or presentation, they can follow up with another video that can discuss the same topic but with a different expert. PeriodicVideos is limited in that way: there is a limited amount of material to teach (such as, the 118 elements of the periodic table³) and any content has to be adjusted to be entertaining and easier to understand for the public. Another drawback is that there are no major companies that support this channel financially so not only are the experts not being paid for their contribution but also their potential to demonstrate and expand is unlikely. This may change in the near future.

Recently, PeriodicVideos announced that they are collaborating with TedEd to allow schoolteachers to use their videos as a teaching tool in their classrooms.⁴ They have built a periodic table with a video for each element (in numerous languages as well) along with a set of questions to answer for each video. The importance of these tools is evident because through this collaboration, we can potentially drive a future generation of students who are more willing to learn. At the same time, it will ease the process of teaching a subject and making the subject more appealing to students who simply do not understand (or find it hard to understand) the sciences.⁵ One statement is certain: the use of the internet will slowly but surely find a permanent place in education, if it has not already done so.

¹ http://www.ted.com/about/our-organization

² http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Chemistry/People/martyn.poliakoff

³ http://www.webelements.com/

⁴ http://youtu.be/9xZU5lJFbos

⁵ http://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/fixing-the-high-school/