For this fall semester, I have completed three research papers focused on spreading various topics on
scientific knowledge towards an expandable audience. The first study was an informative review focused on
reproductive cloning. The assignment was to present the medical topic to a secondary audience outside of the
science community to broaden their horizon on cloning. This assignment was written in newsletter format
present in newspapers such as the New York time science section. It was done with the intention of engaging
non-scientific members active on social media platforms. “Reproductive cloning is described as a medical
procedure done on purpose to create people with the same genetics. A clone is classified as a copy of an
original. An example we are familiar with is identical twins produced the natural way.” The information
presented used vocabulary that was understandable to an eighth-grader and reduced scientific terms. This
outreach helped to spread correct information and maintain the audience’s attention. It included images that
provided graphical explanations of the topic and medical citations to establish credibility. The other part of the
assignment was a critical analysis reflection to review the choice I made while writing my paper and analysis on
how it made it much better for the audience. It was a critique of the Informative paper by another student who
peer-reviewed my work.

The second assignment was a position paper, which differed from the first because it presented
documentation as a claim on an unresolved issue. My claim was about hydropower and wind power being the
future of green cities. The energy resources I proposed were a sustainable outlet in battling climate change and
the human health crisis caused by pollution. I focused on an environmental health issue battling urban
communities, how it could be resolved, and the best alternative energy resource that cities like NYC could turn
to. “Hydropower contributes significantly to the reduction of GHG emissions and energy supply security.
“Compared with conventional coal power plants, hydropower prevents the emission of about 3 GT CO2 per year,
which represents about 9% of global annual CO2 emissions” (Berga, 2016). It can significantly reduce the
immense emission in the air affecting new york residents’ lives by shortening the illness, which drops the

mortality rate.” My paper was concentrated on residents, non-specialist, advocates, and policymakers of the
South Bronx and Northern Manhattan are located in New York City. The format of the paper was in APA with visual
images and citations to back up my claim. This was an argumentative science essay that used adaptive measures
to convey the message of sustainability city programs to a non-scientific audience. The second part of the
assignment was a radio broadcast flyer written and spoken in my native language to target my local community.
This makes them more comfortable in understanding and accepting the message that I am spreading. The
structure of the poster included a title, summary containing the objectives, and call to action. It was bold in
colors and fit the theme of the message.

The last paper was a research proposal that focused on developing a research topic and why it required
necessary attention. My proposal was on the impact of excessive screen time on the human body and the
pandemic. The purpose of the assignment was to create a proper hypothesis for a study with limited evidence
and convince the audience on why further research is conducted. I chose my topic because I examined myself
and various testimonies of different people on their mental health during the lockdown and I wanted to see if
studies could not connect phones to isolations. “There are multiple studies on the excessive use of devices that
affect our health and the pandemics’ effects on different age groups. But little research has been done to show
the connection between both cases on human development. I propose further research done about the pandemic
linked to the prolonged usage of devices affecting our health.” The structure and style of this scientific paper is a
written communication used to argue for new research organized because of the ongoing issue of the Covid-19
pandemic. The audience for this paper includes the scientific and non-scientific audience community because it
affects everyone and precautionary measures should be taken against the issue. The second aspect was a short
video that was to present the research topic, the background information, motivation, and data to the audience
in my community. This video is to help convey the benefits of the research to the audience and provide measures
to take as a member of the community. The video was in a slideshow format containing images, tables, and

graphs.

Linguistic differences greatly impact science and science communication. The language used by
scientists and their writers is very technical and complicated with the use of terms that are too big for many
people to understand. This creates a rift between scientists and non-specialist who find it difficult to comprehend
and communicate on ongoing issues such as climate change or health problems. This limits the spread of
medical knowledge that benefits society and provides precautionary measures. Another problem is the language
barrier when science information is only written or spoken in one language and prevents many people from
different cultures from contributing their ideas and learning for their own responsibilities. Linguistic barriers
need to be overcome in the scientific community. Science writers should seek other means of communication to
educate audiences of various languages and communities. Messages can be spread through posters that are
curated for the communities they are posted in, videos implementing images and animations showing examples
to help people with disabilities, translators can be hired to translate articles and journals. In my critical reflection,
I detailed how visual images help the readers understand scientific ideas in concepts they are familiar with. A
diagram with images and arrows showing the steps help people comprehend the process of the medical
procedure. Actual photographs showing the procedure in action allow people to take the topic seriously. Visual
images help strengthen the case the writer is trying to make. Science writers can use colloquial phrases, slang,
simple transitional words, and write the essay in an organized concise format. The outreach flyer that presented
my sustainability plan was a proper format in presenting an ongoing science knowledge plaguing poor-income
neighborhoods. It was short, direct, and focused on the main points without including excess technical terms. I
loved presenting the proposal research orally with slideshows that showed images and data. It was simple and
can be engaging towards the audience who barely pay attention.

The strategies I used for my informative review critical analysis contains why science writers should
consider language difference and institutionalized racism. They should understand how medical racism is
embedded in our system and history that prevents them from being listened to by minority communities who are
skeptical and cautious. Writers need to listen to the audience and figure out how to combat the language they use
to communicate certain information and acknowledge how minorities have been affected in the past. It prevents
further issues from rising and helps to solve the topic. Language differences should be welcomed in the science
community, it encourages diversity and brings people together in solving problems. Writers should seek means
to educate people outside of their sphere. I addressed these issues in my paper by acknowledging structural
racism in medicine and cited a popular case (Henrietta Lacks) that highlights the main issue of people’s
skepticism and I also mentioned how bias should be addressed because it stems from misunderstanding and lack
of awareness. In my position paper, I learned that the relationship between sponsors funding research can lead to
success and insight on the research outcome. I also learned that it can lead to bias by whatever corporate is
sponsoring the research, many scientists can tweak the data and message of their study to sell a particular view to
an audience. This is wrong and leads to misinformation and distrust by consumers, it also can create further
problems created by the research agenda. It is important to investigate all opposing views in a review paper
because it gives the audience the freedom to judge based on what they’ve gained. It prevents selective bias that
causes someone to look at issues from one perspective that is skewed. These strategies helped in choosing what I
believe were the best paired alternative energy options. It provided me with the pros and cons of energy
resources and created a proper position paper. The strategies I took to identify a niche for my research paper
were finding out my interests and passions, figuring out the problem and connection, finding articles and
journals, and outlining the process of my work. The databases I found to help find sources for my research were
PubMed, Jstor, and ScienceDirect. The peer-reviews were valuable and provided insights on how to make my
papers more better and engaging. It clarified errors and formatting issues.

The adaptive measures I took in connecting with my target audience for my sustainability plan were
written and spoken in my native language. The structure of the poster resonates with the target audience because
it was in a language that they felt comfortable in and understood. The title and objectives were concise. The
choice of the three colors and the design was intentional so it was direct and less clustered. It was bold in colors
and fit the theme of the message. Presenting the outreach flyer in my native language was very fun and healing
and made the assignment personal and felt like I was speaking to actual members of my community. The
strategies I adapted in my research proposal presentation included gifs because the issue targeted youth the most.
I used tables and charts from the study articles to break down information to the viewers. There is value in
presenting research orally because it humanizes the topic and makes people feel connected to the issue.
Narrating the presentation made the proposal easier to understand, communicate and did not feel constricting in
using science terms. Unlike a written essay that is very strict in format and grammar, I had the freedom to
breathe and speak casually to the audience.

Reviewing my response from questions 7 and 9 of my letter of introduction and I still align with that
mindset. I am fully sure that the best characteristics for an articulate speaker are someone confident and
powerful. These traits display intelligence in a person because they appear knowledgeable to the right audience
and persuasive when they deliver their message. I also believe that Standard American English is very accessible
because it uses the basic vocabulary we learned from when we were younger. US globalization has led to the
spread of the culture to multiple parts of the world through trade, technology, and people. It is why so many
people consider the language easier to learn or adapt, and this transcends into science. But I believe that science
language should not be a universal language because it forgets to acknowledge many people that don’t have
resources to gain knowledge that may benefit them. It is not too much for science writers to adapt measures to
translate their works into other languages and other forms of communication.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.