This web page was produced as an assignment for Genetics 677, an undergraduate course at UW-Madison
Comparison of two literature types
The most obvious point one could raise when comparing a primary literature research paper to a popular press article is the shifting of audiences between the two, and all of the implications of this shift. Like many popular press articles when compared to their original sources, this one was relatively concise and basic. The article focussed less on details of pathways or sub-cellular phenomena that may be familiar to a scientist and focussed on diseases and anatomy-based explanations: things the public can relate to. When discussing specialized structures such as the stereocilia the article made the analogy to hair, something tangible that enables our audience to visualize what's going on. There was one misstep in describing the simplified pathway, but this error was probably overlooked by the average reader. The article stuck to factual statements and never provided experimental background with which the information was gathered. Half the time the article was trying to justify to the public why the research is so important, and what could be easily implied in introduction sections of scientific papers, needed to be spelled out to the public.
The scientific review provides a context for why we know what we know. It transcends the shallow "stating of the facts" by providing us with experimental procedure, allowing the reader to double check the logic of inference between the lab design and what has been concluded. Detailed diagrams of potential pathway mechanisms allow a more engaged reader to understand what could be happening sub-cellularly as opposed to anatomically. Also, the research paper provides stimulating extrapolations. It causes the reader to weigh data as to begin to elucidate it. It provokes a desire and clear path for furthering the knowledge base. The myosin motor protein is a perfect example of "going further down the rabbit hole." The popular press article was not prepared to delve into layers of causation as well as the scientific article.
The scientific review provides a context for why we know what we know. It transcends the shallow "stating of the facts" by providing us with experimental procedure, allowing the reader to double check the logic of inference between the lab design and what has been concluded. Detailed diagrams of potential pathway mechanisms allow a more engaged reader to understand what could be happening sub-cellularly as opposed to anatomically. Also, the research paper provides stimulating extrapolations. It causes the reader to weigh data as to begin to elucidate it. It provokes a desire and clear path for furthering the knowledge base. The myosin motor protein is a perfect example of "going further down the rabbit hole." The popular press article was not prepared to delve into layers of causation as well as the scientific article.
Ben Hofeld, [email protected], last updated: 5.15.2010, Link to course page:www.gen677.weebly.com
