Q Step 1: Read the media report: MRSE (Media) The Atlantic.pdf A popular American magazine article that started a firestorm of interest in scientific research relating to the star KIC 8462852. Since the intended audience is the general public, this is the media report that millions of people were exposed to once it caught on to television & blogs. Step 2: Answer the guiding questions about the media report: • What is the point the article is trying to address? • How does the media author address it? • What does it mean when an object “transits” in front of a star? • Describe the method used to gather observational data for this study. • What were the results of the research? • What questions do you have about the study? Step 3: Read the original science journal article: MRSE (Science) Boyagian et al.pdf The original scientific research presented by Dr. Boyagian in a major scientific journal. It has become popular amongst astronomers, with nearly 60 citations. Despite how you may feel about it, this is one of the easiest to read & well-written science articles I’ve ever seen. To make it easier, focus on these sections: The abstract Section 1: Introduction Section 4: Possible explanation of the observed dipping events observed in KIC 8462852 Section 5: Summary and conclusions Step 4: Answer the following questions about the science journal article: • Were any of your questions answered? • Did you learn any additional information from reading the original science journal article (compared with the media article)? • How convinced are about the quality of the data used in the study? • How convinced are you of the conclusion of the research? • What additional research projects would you propose? Step 5: Watch the TED talk given by Tabitha Boyajian after the media hype. Approximately 1 year later, the primary scientist who made the discovery gave a public talk in front of many potential financial donors. https://youtu.be/gypAjPp6eps Step 6: Watch John Oliver’s synopsis of the media’s portrayal of scientific research A comedic look at the core problem with how scientific research is interpreted & delivered by the media. https://youtu.be/0Rnq1NpHdmw Due Wednesday, Apr. 17 at 11:59 PM (no late assignments accepted) Write & upload a document in PDF file format, other formats are not accepted. Use the following guidelines (-10 points for deviating in format) • Your name & title of paper on 1 line each (don’t create filler for dates, class, etc.) • Single-space • 1-inch margins on all sides • 12 pt font • Accepted fonts: Times New Roman, Calibri, Helvetica • Do NOT use different character or line spacings. Basic goals: • Demonstrate that you are a responsible science consumer • State your feelings on the accessibility of the media report vs. the science journal article • Explain the differing roles of the media author, primary scientist, and “citizen scientists” • Concisely display an understanding of the basic scientific principle (transits) • Explain where the data originated • Explain who the “planet hunters” are, and why they were needed • Cover why the transit is not simply due to a planet/dust/comet/etc • Explain the relative importance of media reports in the realm of science • Explain what can go wrong and how to avoid it • Critically evaluate whether the media author did a good job in portraying the science here • Use well-reasoned arguments, the point of this assignment is critical thinking • Write a better evaluation than your classmates. • I typically grade these by grouping papers into piles of “top quality”, “good stuff”, “acceptable”, “didn’t get the point”, and “low quality”. • Also, if I’m entertained, that’s usually a good thing. Specific goals: • 1.5 to 2 pages of written content • Write in a grammatical accurate style that has no spelling errors (up to -10 points) • At least 4 cohesive paragraphs of college level writing o Topic sentences in each paragraph o The supporting sentences should relate to the topic o You may follow the “basic” essay format (typically leads to B or C grades) o Only use the “basic” format as a guide; literally typing “this was supported by body paragraph 1” is not good practice • Bibliography is not necessary for the 2 articles & 2 videos in Part 1 o Other sources of information need to be cited appropriately o Bibliography isn’t counted as content • This is a university level course, high quality writing is expected. “If necessary, use this guide to get started on an acceptable written essay. Do not expect to receive maximum credit by following it precisely, as it is only meant to assist you if you have trouble writing.” – Mr. Muro Title: “Catchy/informative title about what you’re going to read” Intro paragraph: What are you writing about? • Introduce both papers, use abbreviations for each: TA (The Atlantic), and MNRAS (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society) • Use TED as an abbreviation for the TED talk given by Tabitha Boyajian • What’s the relationship/theme between the two articles? • Which is the media report, which is the peer-reviewed science journal article • What’s the difference? Who is the intended audience for each? • Thesis statement: “The media did a good/bad job of reporting on good/bad science.” Body paragraph 1: Explain the basic science • Topic: The science research examined and found that the results were • The method for the observations was • The overall scope of the research was to observe over a period of days/years • The science journal concluded that , while the media articles concluded that Body paragraph 2: Your insights from reading • Topic: The results of the study were/weren’t convincing because • I felt like the media/science articles were easy/hard to understand, because • I was/wasn’t initially convinced because • I wanted to know more about • was the key point I focused on, because • I feel that future studies on this topic could be improved by Body paragraph 3: Evaluating the quality of the media reporting on science • Topic: The media articles did a good/bad job summarizing the science for the general public • One article was longer, this was a good/bad thing because • The media report sounded more/less authoritative than the science articles because • At least one concern I/we had about the media article quality is that • Answer: Did the media article add in new information/conclusions? Did this overstep the source material’s conclusions? Body paragraph 4/5/6: Alternative topics (optional) • Science is more/less accessible because of media articles, and that’s a good/bad thing. • I feel like this is a big/stupid issue for scientists to study because • I should always/never trust the media • The bigger issue is how society views science, since it is not presented directly from scientists. Conclusion paragraph: Thus, I conclude that… • Recap thesis statement: “The media did a good/bad job of reporting on good/bad science.” • This was supported by (specific evidence) in body paragraphs 1,2,3, etc • Overall, reading the science journals made me more/less confident in the media article • This exercise was fun/boring/interesting • Closing thoughts