1. Written by: Anton Holland Presented by: Terrence Dickerson Date Presented: April 19, 2011

2.  Reasons for Good Science Writing  Improve decision making  Bridge scientific illiteracy gap  Ways to Improve Science Writing  Present objective arguments  Address the basics  Categorize the writing appropriately  Understand the values of the scientists and journalists  Conclusion  Good science writing is more important now than it has ever been before

4.  Science and technology are a vital aspect of public policy.  Lawmakers need to understand the scientific studies they provide funding and make policies for.

5.  Science writing is read by even those without a scientific background.  The scientific illiteracy gap is broadening.  Examples of the scientific illiteracy gap:  A little over 10 percent of the population in industrialized countries has a good understanding of scientific concepts and methods. -Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)  One third of respondents in a recent survey did not know what a molecule was. - Northern Illinois University

7.  Bias/Subjective information can be misleading to readers.  Bias interferes with objectivity.  Common situations bias may occur:  Scientific studies done on behalf of an advocacy group  Studies funded by an industry to support a particular view

8.  Readers should be presented the basics about the scientific work or they will get confused.  As a scientist involved with the work, it can be easy to forget the basics of the research.  Common acronyms  Background information

9.  Scientific writing must be presented or categorized so that the appropriate audience reads it.  Scientific writings may sometimes fit multiple categories.  Example:  A paper on scientific waste should be categorized as business, environment, and health related.

10.  Journalists and scientists think differently which can lead to invalid conclusions.  Journalists evaluate evidence and commit to an answer.  Scientists test information to prevent misinterpretation before expressing an opinion.  Caution on the part of a scientist may be interpreted as uncertainty by a journalist.

11.  Science writing needs to be understandable so even people without a scientific background can make informed decisions.  Science writing needs to provide objective information and target the appropriate audience.  Any Questions?