How do we become better science writers?

          Science is constantly challenging what we know about out place in the world, and once we settle into one theory another comes along. How does anyone trust science is continually in motion? According to the ASR study, “Conservatives,” particularly those whom are educated, seem to fall into the same category as I, a general distrust of science. Attending a liberal arts college and being as science major I feel as though I am in the minority. The complacent attitude of the students to merely accept what authority says as truth alarms me. We must challenge the 21^st century content society and ask what it means to be a scientist-citizen.

          What does it mean to be a scientist? In my definition a scientist is someone who seeks to satisfy their curiosity, decipher the unknown, challenge their way of thinking, and contend what we think we already know through use of the scientific method. My definition is inclusive allowing anyone to have access to information rather than elite, “ruling” population. If a farmer utilizes the scientific method to improve his or her crop production, I would argue they are a scientist. We take the citizen out of the scientist and the scientist out of the citizen we manufacture a hierarchy of one being more important than the other. When we allow one group to control the knowledge without question we are denying ourselves the truth. To be a better science writer we must dismantle this hierarchy.

          Contrary to common belief, neither scientists nor the very fields they are a part of are removed from social/cultural influences. Quite the opposite science and society are inextricably linked. The ASR article ostracized “conservatives” as a group of people who due to their religious or political beliefs distrust science. There is reason to be distrustful. I argue that skepticism is fundamental to science and that being too trusting of this politicized scientific system can in fact have negative consequences. An example is the representation of the egg and the sperm. Historically, the egg has been described as a passive vessel in the reproductive process, while the sperm actively seems reproduction. This directly compared to the cultural idea that women were to be submissive and men were dominant. I suggest as science writers we critically analyze the entire experimentation process and recognize… If science is not removed from but part of society (and I will show this in the next paragraph), then it follows that to ultimately and fundamentally change science we must also change society.

          As science writers we should strive to be inclusive and recognize the differences between people without losing sight of the scientific method. Science cannot and should not be removed from the society that benefits from its progress. The ASR article teaches us that we should improve our writing through restructuring and breaking down the hierarchy. Citizens are scientists and scientists are citizens. Lastly, we learn that science is not a separate entity but a highly integrated part of our society. Being a better science writer requires recognizing and analyzing what science means to the people.