Author: David Mashkevich

Going into the course at the beginning of the year, I wasn’t sure what to expect, as I had previously taken only introductory science courses, and only in high school. I have to say that starting the year off with BioBlitz was not what I expected. Even though the event was put together well and I enjoyed interacting with students from other CUNY colleges, I thought that the data collected was pretty straightforward and would have preferred to see a more in-depth study of a certain organism or species. Perhaps with that, other groups would have been able to present their findings at a follow-up Macaulay event.

However, the STEAM festival was quite the opposite. I think the chance to be creative within science was well taken by the class and we presented some of the best work at the festival. The event and presentation seems fitting because science has become increasingly innovative, which is driven by creativity. Such an opportunity is therefore valuable, because it can help students realize their potential for careers within science. I also thought the course made great use of the 3D printing available at Baruch, as this made our projects very practical and real, as compared to other classes that may have put together numerical analyses.

Lastly, I thought that the use of ePortfolios was well integrated into the course and made submitting assignments simple and straightforward throughout the semester. Knowing all of the assignment deadlines made it easy for me to plan out my work ahead of time, to prevent from falling behind. This became especially important when we had several parallel projects to work on – I think it really helped ensure that we completed all of the work that was required for the course. Thank you again for a great semester everyone!

What sets science apart from other areas/fields of study is that it stresses equal value on both the results and process of a sequence. In an experiment, these is a specific set of steps to follow to stress a correct way of doing something. Your thinking in an experiment has to be methodical and sequential, with each step of the procedure leading to the next, eventually culminating in some sort of result. The process in this setup must be controlled because any deviance from it can lead to altered or flawed results that are not easily replicated. The procedure in any given lab procedure is outlined in detail because for something to be accepted in the scientific community, it must be replicable using a unique sequence. Thus, unlike other academic writing that can include elaborate prose and figurative language, lab reports must be written in a coherent, concise and detailed manner, because their purpose eliminate potential error from those duplicating the experiment.

Personally, I feel that the purpose of doing a lab in school is to experience the practical applications of science concepts taught in the classroom. Students retain information better when through experiences and “doing” rather than just listening and writing, so the practical aspects of a lab certainly help students better understand the science that they have been learning. This is especially important for students taking non-specialist courses – where it is important to thoroughly understand and retain the building blocks of science. Conducting lab experiments in non-specialist science classes allow students to leave the class knowing the fundamental importance of scientific results and research, given that they themselves participated in the scientific process. This is precisely what I seem to gain from our upcoming labs – a stronger understanding and retention of scientific concepts through the experience of actually conducting the experiment.

After reading the 1971 New York Times article, I immediately noticed some differences in writing style when compared to similar scientific articles published today. Overall, this article was much more process-oriented, offering relevant details to support the claims outlined in the scientific study. The author tells the story and process of the scientific innovation, presenting findings in the order that they were discovered. In particular, the author devotes paragraphs of the text to state the credentials of particular researchers. For instance, the end of the first page contains a section discussing the history of prostaglandin research, which names specific studies and their findings. The section gives context to the current study and I found it interesting that the author gives the location and names of those involved in previous studies. I speculate that this was done to justify the credibility of those who contributed to the outlined research, as few people would have been able to verify that on their own. Information was not as readily available in the 1970s, and readers would likely have had to make several calls to verify the work of researchers named in the article. However, an article in today’s newspaper may have contained links/references to these previous studies – so that readers could conduct their own background checks.

I also believe that while the article does a great job of explaining the scientific innovation outlined in the research study, something like this would never be published in today’s New York Times. This is largely due to major changes in the way we receive and interpret information in today’s world. More so than ever, it has become important to condense information and deliver key points in as few words as possible, and information now moves quicker than ever before. This is directly reflected by the aforementioned differences between the two articles, and readers must now conduct their own due diligence if they wish to learn more about the process of scientific research and verify the credibility of the publisher/author of a scientific study. Unfortunately, this opens the door for more inaccurate reporting and falsified information to leak into popular media, which our Hot Topic presentations helped us identify.

Thus, this article presents a great amount of valuable scientific information and background of those involved in the scientific study, but only because readers would not have had the resources to find that information on their own.