Today's lecture:
Although we only watch a few minutes of the Future of Science Journalism video, you might want to watch more:
Although we only watch a few minutes of the Future of Science Journalism video, you might want to watch more:
Here is a link to the E-Portfolio assignment. Be sure to follow all the guidelines!
Remember, Friday is an ONLINE class. You'll need to complete the following by 11:50am on Friday:
By the end of
class students must:
nComplete the
social media survey on the Module 2 blog post
nSet up a blog
using Blogger (recommended) and write an introductory post about you and your field of study
and what role communication plays in your work (dissemination of results,
linking with fellow researchers, etc.…)
- remember, you will want to choose a professional name for this ALES204 e-portfolio
nIn a comment
on the Module 2 blog post, leave a link to your newly started blog (absolutely
necessary so the professor and TAs can grade your work)
nNote: you
require a personal blog for your E-Portfolio.
nNote: follow
ALL e-portfolio guidelines (images, links and proper citations)
The author of Neurotribes took his own point of view or objectivity on the story. He expressed his views about homosexuality and the Republican's harsh stance against it. The author of The Loom also offered the author's opinion and his voice was evident rather than being completely objective. For instance, he called Dave Berry's work revolutionary.
ReplyDelete-Becky Shapka, Rosie Templeton, Mark Lahoda, Dani Young
The Loom is objective and report information based on scientific articles. It can be a good source of information however it uses technical jargon so can be difficult to understand if you are not familiar with the jargon used. On the other hand, Nuerotribes is subjective from the point of view of the author. It may be easier to understand but may not be accurate information.
ReplyDeleteGroup members: Brittany Stewart, Tanya Tompolski, Julie Lackowicz
ReplyDeleteThe article we read on Neurotribes was titled "Dear United Airlines: I Want My Kindle, and My Dignity, Back". The writing perspective was very personal, as the author was writing about a situation that he had encountered himself. It was very subjective, and didn't really have much to do with science. The article we read on The Loom was entitled "Any deadly virus to declare". It took a objective view, and presented mainly hard facts about meat that has been seized in airports and that this meat can trasmit diseases.
Group members: Angela, Samantha, Paige & Rebecca
ReplyDeleteThe Loom blog, perspective: scientific community (evolving bodies) - less objective
Neurotribes blog, perspective: reporting from a distance (book review about autism post) - less personal more objective
Group members:
ReplyDeleteStephanie Nash
Julia Doell
Danielle Lu
Brenda Le
There was an article on NeuroTribes about autism and the different views of autism. We thought that this article was written from the perspective of the families and parents of autistic children. An article on the Loom about the beauty of science takes a scientific perspective about the evolution of earth.
Group Members: Darcy Bemister, Erica Posteraro, Patrick Laska
ReplyDeleteOur group felt that the NeuroTribes posts were more opinionated and gave the direct point of view of the writer versus exploring multiple view points.
http://blogs.plos.org/neurotribes/2011/01/10/why-cant-the-heroic-intern-who-saved-giffords-life-get-married-in-arizona/
The Loom seems to be a slightly more credible site, as it involves more experiment based information and includes overviews of certain topics. At the same time, it still expresses the authors individual perspective.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/01/12/inside-darwins-tumor/
In The Loom we found that it referenced the original paper more and seemed to have more of a credible scientific basis as it backed up the information posted with the actual primary literature. In comparison, the Neurotribes had more of a personal perspective on most of the information that was posted and the author's opinion was more evident in his writing.
ReplyDeleteThe authors of the loom are more objective and take a very science forward point of view. Conversely, authors of neurotribe are more personal and directly related to their topic; you can feel/read emotions in their blog.
ReplyDeleteGroup with Cassandra Holte and Rui Li.
ReplyDeleteWe thought the NeuroTribe point of view took a close to audience perspective. In the NeuroTribe article about autism it was written by people who had autistic children. The article wasn't all that scientific but it was obvious it was written by people who cared about the subject and had an opinion.
The Loom took a very scientific point of veiw. It was taken from a perspective of someone high above the scene who is a little involved. The Loom seemed much more scientific and factual than the NeuroTribe site. We read the the article about Words bringing Words to Life.
I think The Loom takes on a combination of taking on the perspective from a distance and close to a scientific community. It refers to other people's point of view while presenting science popularization. NeuroTribe uses a perspective from a distance and close to the audience. It seems as though the article is biased to what they think the majority of the audience wants to hear while not directly contributing their personal ideas and thoughts themselves.
ReplyDeleteI believe that The Loom is mostly writing from the perspective above the scene and reporting from the distance. This view does not really hamper with objectivity because he is mostly just stating what other people have said and the facts about the subject.
ReplyDeleteNeurotribes is in a perspective that is close to the audience since it is examining a problem in everyday life that is still rather controversial. As well, they are reporting from a distance because they are reporting what happened and what was said, with a small amount of personal opinion added.
NeuroTribes is a blog with more subjectivity then objectivity. The article we read was written from a very personal point of view. The author had many personal opinions on homosexual encounters with abuse in society. The Loom is much more objective with more scientific credibility. The article we read was about the search for the spread of a virus between animals and humans. Carl Zimmer went to the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University to get evidence and research to back up his opinions and writing.
ReplyDelete-Shannon Wilson, Emily Dymchuk
We found that Zimmer's articles are approached from a scientific standpoint. He used the opinions of experts to help make the articles well rounded and not as subjective.
ReplyDeleteSilberman's article had more of a emotional drive in the writing. This allowed us to connect with the article and want to come back and read more. This also gave the article a biased view.
As a group we read an article on the loom entitled 'Did Earth's Gold Come From Outer Space?' The author of this article presented the information from a scientific point of view referencing peer reviewed, creditable science journal articles. His audience would be people interested in scientific research that is backed with facts and not opinion. His view does not hamper the "objectivity" of the story since he does not present it with a biased opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe article we selected as a group from neurotribes, "The Meal that Ended My Career as a Restaurant Critic." The author of this article took a personal point of view. He included opinion in his article, and backed his opinion with personal experience which hampered the "objectivity" of the story. In the article, there appears no peer reviewed references which leads us to the conclusion that his story could/is biased, and should not be taken as fact.
Steve Silberman from Neurotribes wrote his articles from a personal viewpoint. He posted his own opinions about autism, homosexuality and minorities.
ReplyDeleteThe author of the loom offers a more scientific point of view and gives evidence to back his support. He writing from the perspective of a science organization.
-Pauline Nguyen,Yuhan Jiang, Xuechan Yang
The Loom takes a scientific perspective while including the audience in his discussion. It gives you the facts and provides suggestions instead of opinions. It allows the audience an opportunity to discuss topics. We based our opinion on this article: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/ (first article)
ReplyDeleteNeurotribe took an organization/group perspective while commenting on the "Why Can't the Heroic Intern Who Saved Giffords' Life Get Married in Arizona" article. The comments section was from the perspective of close to the audience as he commented to readers of his column.
Neurotribes- Takes the point of view of a victim (Homosexuality)
ReplyDeleteThe Loom - Takes the point of view of a scientific objective (Darwin's Tumor)
Vanesa, Brenna, Jacqueline
The blog posts on Neurotribes seem to be more one sided based on the authors opinion. Though he explains the story being talked about, he takes a stance based on his opinion. The Loom is more factual and seems to have a more professional science based background in it's articles.
ReplyDelete-Bianca Cimino & Shelley Du
"A Tapeworm Mystery: Which Way is Up?" by Carl Zimmer and "What Kind of Buddhist was Steve Job, Really" by Steve Silberman
ReplyDeleteIn the first article, we found the the author to be reporting from a distance, as well as close to the scientific community. It does not hamper the view of the story since he is reporting from a distance. It's very objective view and is easy to see the whole story.
On the other hand, the second is critiquing Steve Jobs, and the perspective is close to the single person. It hampers the article because is very biased, and although he uses supporting evidence, it is subjective because it only upholds one opinion.
-Sydney Killoh, Elizabeth Krysa, Rebecca Saul
The author of neurotribes posts very interesting (but long) articles based mainly from the authors opinion. He does a great job of bringing in several views and talking about the people who are directly effected by the subject.
ReplyDeleteThe author of The Loom posts an objective article and allows his readers to respond and interact, as he described, in a platform more suited to scientific discussion.
In Neurotribes, we read "Dear United Airlines: I want My Kindle, and My Dignity, Back". Steve Silberman did not use a very scientific approach and did not remain objective when describing how airline travel has changed. His perspective was very clearly against all these changes. We read "The No-Touch Pat-Down" in the Loom. It was much more objective and scientifically written.
ReplyDeleteNeurotribes seem to be a little more opinion based in terms of the language he uses and there is a lot of his views and not a lot of scientific bases. The Loom appears to be a lot more interactive with others and has a lot of individual examples while still staying on topic. The author of the Loom has a bit more scientific knowledge integrated into the articles.
ReplyDeleteOur group read "Why can't the Heroic Intern..." from Neurotribes, and "Evolving Bodies..." from The Loom. The article from Neurotribes was very opinionated, as if the author was telling a story. He provides a lot of evidence to convince us of his point of view.
ReplyDeleteThe article from The Loom opened a discussion on a scientific paper, and although the author had a strong opinion, it was all based on other scientific research. He wrote about everyone's perspective on the topic and opened a forum for discussion.
Karen is Leung Hau Ying
DeleteGroup Members:
ReplyDeleteJasveer Brar
Alana Soderberg
Erin Hrycan
Laura Scott
Sarah Dube
Kelsey Rutar
We believe that the author of The Loom has more of an objective standpoint on topics. Although he does express his opinions and often says "I," his words don't cloud the topic at hand.
The author of Neurotribe expresses his opinion and feelings in his writing style and standpoint. It is clear he is explaining his views in his blog, by using strategic wording.
I read "Inside Darwin's Tumor" by Carl Zimmerman, this post was informative in an easy to understand matter for those of us who aren't oncologists. I believe he wrote it from a "close to the audience perspective" because it had neutral tone, and like I said previously, it aimed to inform about a new discovery. Had I wrote this post it would of been from a different perspective most likely as I lost my grandma to AML.
ReplyDeleteI also read "Book of the Year: Thinking Person's Guide to Autism" by Steve Silberman. This post may be written from a "close to the organization" view because it influences my perspective when reading it, therefore it does hamper the objectivity of the story. The post made me want to read more about the history of treating autism with an already formed stance that the people such as the early scientists mentioned in the post were "bad" people.
Evident from these two posts, blogs can be used to inform or persuade.
The article written on the The Loom "A Hot Young Earth: My Answer to the Annual Edge Question" was a personal perspective. His view hampers his objectivity because the entire article is subjective based on a person question.
ReplyDeleteThe article written on Neurotribes "The Sketchbook of Susan Kare, the Artist Who Gave Computing a Human Face" was an audience perspective. His view did not hamper his objectivity because although we could see his personal experience it was not blatantly put out there.
Rheon Fisher, Aislinn Chan, Carolina Amaral, Janessa Sullivan
Group Memmbers: Omair Afzal and Andria Carlyon
ReplyDeleteWe found that The Loom presented a more scientific view than the NeuroTribes blog posts. NeuroTribes had some more bias to the article we read.
http://blogs.plos.org/neurotribes/2011/01/10/why-cant-the-heroic-intern-who-saved-giffords-life-get-married-in-arizona/
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/26-skip-the-shampoo/?searchterm=skip%20the%20shampoo
Myself and Deanna Halls read the article from the Loom called "Words bring life to life" (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/01/13/words-bring-life-to-life/), and we thought that the author definitely put in his own personal view, but also gave information about what he was writing about. His post shared about what he had learned, as well as giving his own opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe article we read from "Neurotribes" called "Dear United Airlines: I Want My Kindle, and My Dignity, Back" (http://blogs.plos.org/neurotribes/2011/08/30/dear-united-airlines-i-want-my-kindle-and-my-dignity-back/) took a very subjective view, in which the author gave his own opinion quite clear, which easily related to the audience.
Group: Hayley Kosolofski and Christy Czapski
ReplyDeleteWe read Words Bring Life to Life from the Loom which was a single person's view on using metaphors to describe biology. From neurotibes we read Book of the year: a thinking person's guide to autism which was objective in its description of autism but more opinionated in the review of the book.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMarney Steadman and I have reviewed the blog entries "Words Bring Life to Life" from The Loom, and "Hidden Light: The Visual Language of an Austistic Photographer" from Neurotribes.
ReplyDeleteWhat we have come across is that the perspective of The Loom's article is related to the scientific community, and the Neurotribes article comes from a more distanced viewpoint, as the blogger summarizes the obstacles overcome by a 20-year-old austistic photographer.
The viewpoint of The Loom's article was less objective, because the author expressed his own opinion about the DNA video.
The viewpoint of the Neurotribes blog post hampers the objectivity, because it's more of a subjective topic and it doesn't seem as if he knew Forrest Sargent personally.
Group members: Marcos Aguiar, Alexander Bautista, Michelle Leung
ReplyDeleteOur group looked at the article "What's the Most Important Lesson You Learned From a Teacher", in which we found it more objective than the article of the Loom, "Any Deadly viruses to Declare", in which we found it objective. It was scientifc, and straightforward with the facts. While the other article was a bit more personal.
We feel as though The Loom took a much more organisational standpoint in their articles where as NeuroTribes takes a much more personal standpoint in it's articles. Pierre Aubin, Taylor Andersen and Nicole Luchanski.
ReplyDeleteI think articles on the Loom is on the perspective of a scientific community, because there are many scientific experiments and other basic information about science in those articles. However, articles on the NeuroTribes are on the viewpoint of a single person, he is telling us a story and he also will show his opinion about this story.
ReplyDeleteThe author of the article "Evolving Bodies: A Storify follow-up" in the Loom was more of a disccusion of the scientific evidence the was based on a research paper.It seems that the Loom is more scientifically acurate than the Neurotribes.
ReplyDelete-Rima Tabet
The author of "Book of the Year: Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism" in Neurotribes is trying to write from a third party percpective with a bias of empathy towards families dealing with children with authism.
Rima Tabet, and Heather Nelson
On The Loom, Carl Zimmer's article titled "Inside Darwin's Tumor" (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/01/12/inside-darwins-tumor/) seems to speak to those within the science community. While the article could still be understood by those without a science background, things like having working knowledge of what a 'genome' is or what 'hematopoietic stem cells' are would help in developing a better understanding of Zimmer's article. As such, Zimmer's stance in his writing is much more knowledge-based and objective in comparison to many of the articles found on Neurotribes.
ReplyDeleteOn Neurotribes, Steve Silberman's article titled "Book of the Year: Thinking Person's Guide to Autism" (http://blogs.plos.org/neurotribes/2011/12/19/book-of-the-year-thinking-persons-guide-to-autism/) is written in a noticeably subjective manner. However, the content of the article (and likely many of the others found on Neurotribes) would have a better chance of being comprehensive regardless of the backgrounds from which various audiences come.
We found that The Loom was much more objective than Neurotribes. Stylistically, the posts in neurotribe are written very similarly to editorials and even the topics themselves are much more opinionated. The Loom also contains Carl Zimmer's opinion within his writing but it is much less apparent mostly likely because it is a blog that is maintained for Discover magazine and he himself is a scientist (and has the view of a scientist) and is interested in delivering the facts first and foremost. Inside Darwin's Tumour, for example, gave the full details of the developments of cancer and while he did describe it as "sad," he gave all the relevant details of the development of cancer in one woman.
ReplyDeleteIt was much more objective in comparison to Silberman's What Kind of Buddhist was Steve Jobs, Really? in which he decides what our opinion is ("Isaacson is admirably frank") and admits that he has "personal stake in this". It was very clear in his articles that he was writing from his own viewpoint.
Both blogs have a different approach on journalism, with one being more personal and opinionated, and the other being more factual and objective. However, both are written in a professional manner, and contain credible sources and references to other articles or books, making them much more reliable sources than other blogs such as Scientopia.
By Carmen Dam, Chau Chin Yo, Evelyn Cheng
I thought, the article "What the most important lesson you learned from a teacher" in NeuroTribes was written close to a single person's perspective as the auther focused on her husband's experiences and her voice was a little bit more personal than the article in the Loom "Evolving Bodies" which I thought was written in a scientific perspective as its was based on different scientific research findings.
ReplyDeleteIn article "A Hot Young Earth: My Answer to the Annual Edge Question" from The Loom, the author is answering a question, giving it a personal perspective. This hampers the author’s objectivity because the article giving a personal opinion on the question. The article from NeuroTribes, "What Kind of Buddhist was Steve Job, Really", also has a single person perspective, which hampers the author’s objectivity as well, since the article shows a lot of his personal opinion on the matter.
ReplyDeleteIn the article "Inside Darwin's Tumor" posted on The Loom, the author gives the explanation of how cancer cells have the ability to mutate within a human patient which leads to an anecdotal explanation of a woman going through chemotherapy. In the article the author seems to taking a more scientific standing with this article rather than a personal approach. For Neurotribes, the article "What's the most important lesson you learned from a teacher" the author gives a personal recollection of his teacher Keith, detailing his endless efforts in lesson planning to his goofy attire in the classroom. This personal approach to this article make it seem more sincere as he further explains the benefits of an engaging teacher.
ReplyDeleteGROUP member Lutong Huang and Qiyun Liang
ReplyDeleteLOOM is more scientific and objective than Neurotribes. Both of them do not have peer review. If we do the research we cannot use both of them, but we only can get the information from that. These two websites present the boring scientific article in an interesting way by using funny pictures. Both of them have their own characteristic, personally, we prefer LOOM
Group member lutong Huang, Qiyun Liang
ReplyDeleteLoom is more scientific ang objective than neurotribes. However, both of them do not have peer review. If we do a research or write a paper, we cannot use both of them. These two website present the scientific knowledge in an interesting way, so that they can attract readers. We cannot use them for academic purpose, but we can get the information and main ideas from them
Group members:
ReplyDeleteMinmin Gao
Rui Li
Wenxin Li
Yunke Xu
Feiyan Zhou
The one we chose from The Loom was the newest one, which showed the author's own opinion about the evolution of single cell. This article was not so objective because the author focused more on his own opinions rather than the observed facts. The one we found from Neurotribes was also the newest article, which was written in third perspective. This article talked about books and thoughts in an objective way, and the author illustrated his opinions with many examples. But both articles from The Loom and Neurotribes were based on people’s opinions and were not peer-reviewed. We cannot use them in research paper, but they are still good resources to get access to scientific news and information.
I chose the newest post from neurotribes 'Book of the Year: Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism' the author writes about the book and how there is a shift in the way people perceive Autism. The book itself is from the perspective of those with Autism, and those who's loved one have it.I found it very compelling, and I would love you read more. The Loom article I chose was Any Deadly Viruses to Declare? an article about the viruses brought into the United States through animals, and transferred to humans. The author of this story made a second hand recount of the scientists findings. Neither of these articles were peer reviewed, making them unsuitable for acedemic purposes, but a good read nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteI chose "Book of the Year: Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism" on Neurotribes and "A Hot Young Earth: My Answer to the Annual Edge Question" on The Loom.The article on Neurotribes does not have supportive peer review or credible reference articles. The author expresses lots of his own opinions and perspectives. Therefore, it is more subjective.On the other side, the author of the article on The Loom is more scientific. He uses credible scientists reference and peer reviewed articles as references.However, people who are not in science area may find some of the terminologies are hard to understand.The author also comments the in his perspective/opinions sometimes.For example, he thinks that "the nature of science is beautiful".
ReplyDelete