Corpus Callosum: Honors Courses

Coming into this class, I was relatively familiar with scientific writing. However, I was much less familiar with science communication for a general public audience. This was new to me as my writing thus far had primarily been either scientific or intended for a public audience. This class has made me much more aware of the style of writing, the helpful rhetorical tools, and the specific guidelines for public communication of science. 

My biggest takeaway from this quarter has to be, like what we wrote in the public letter, to very carefully and intentionally consider my audience. While this seems obvious, I realized that I often took my own understanding of science for granted when writing about science. It was eye-opening to see where my peers were confused within my own writing, and where I was lost in others’, all while we were already attempting to simplify. Part of the difficulty, at least for me personally, was that reducing something into “layman's terms” requires a much deeper understanding of the subject matter than merely repeating the jargon. This meant that when the subject matter was challenging, as in the science popularization assignment, the writing was also challenging. 

Another assignment that presented a unique challenge for me–and the one that I found the most difficult–was the academic minute podcast. Not only did it require a “translation,” of sorts, of a scientific article (like the science popularization assignment), it was also much shorter than the other assignments. This added a new layer of difficulty as there was much less room to offer explanations of the more complex or technical concepts from the science. Because I did this on research happening within my own lab, it was a really useful exercise to check my understanding and ability to effectively communicate the nuanced main ideas. 

The oral communication medium is also one that is relatively new to me. I am much more comfortable with written communication, and writing for speech is not intuitive for me. Having to really focus on how everything sounded and flowed was difficult but I like the new approach to written communication. I also found that this assignment in particular was where it was best to avoid jargon altogether– as one of my peers pointed out, you can’t go back and reread a sentence if you’re listening to it. Overall, it was definitely a mindset switch but enjoyed the new style of writing that it called for.

Surprisingly, I think the assignment that I’m most proud of is the film review I wrote on Don’t Look Up. Creative writing is not really my strong suit but this assignment blended science communication, character analysis, and the review genre in a way that I really enjoyed. Viewing a work through such a specific lens was also an interesting way of consuming and evaluating media. This was one of the less technically challenging assignments but I still found it really interesting to write from a scientist’s perspective about pop culture. I think this was one of the assignments that really embodied the “scientist citizen” concept, as it asked us to comment on the portrayal of science and scientists within media from an “expert’s” perspective.
​
The other assignment that I think really asked as to step into the “scientist citizen” role was the opinion editorial. What made this assignment unique was that while all the other assignments asked us to remain relatively objective (at least about politics), this one asked us to make an argument about something steeped in political controversy. I think the challenge of this assignment for me personally was to walk the line between science and politics. Because I cared about the topic I chose, it was difficult to focus on just the science when the socioeconomic, historical, and political contexts surrounding the issue were also relevant to the topic more broadly. What I learned from this was to narrow my argument to something where science is at the forefront. Essentially, rather than trying to tackle marijuana legalization, I decided to step back and focus on the more specific topic of the gateway hypothesis. This allowed me to focus on the scientific misconceptions surrounding the topic, and let the science speak for itself when considering “next steps” such as examining the current policies surrounding marijuana. My takeaway from this assignment is that not only should I consider my audience’s own perspective, I should also consider their stance on me as the author and the ethos that I hold within different contexts. 
​
Overall, this class has challenged me to tackle new genres and styles of writing from a scientific perspective. I have really enjoyed the process of collaborative revision and learned so much about public communication and addressing a general audience. I think the skills I learned in this class will be a great asset to my future career in science. I also think that this course is a fantastic example of how Honors courses push me to think inter-disciplinarily and blend the "analytic and creative". It gave me the opportunity to weave in my outside interests-- my research-- and think about how I might frame them in a way that is more accessible to a wider audience.