In the science field, a lot of the time research can be portrayed differently in popular press articles, for example newspaper or magazine articles, compared to the scientific article published from a peer-reviewed journal. Sometimes newspaper or magazine articles can forget or exaggerate certain results. This is why it is always important to read not only the popular press literature but also to read the material from which the popular press got its information. The journal article I chose to read is called; Microbiota-driven transcriptional changes in prefrontal cortex override genetic difference in social behavior. Professors and medical doctors conducted the research in this article. Evidence was found suggesting a relationship between
…show more content…
The news article was a summary of the scientific article but in laymen terms, so it could be informative to a bigger audience. The news article made the conclusions more relatable to real life and easier to understand. I could tell that both articles were in agreement because the main results of the study were depicted almost identically. From reading both articles I got the same sense of what materials and methods were used in the study, what hypothesis was being tested, what results were found and what conclusions could be made. Something that stood out was that the news article used the statement from Dr. Timothy Lu, “There’s a symbiotic relationship between the two sides, human and bacteria” to emphasize what the point of relating gut bacteria and humans was, while the journal article just used more scientific facts and terms to talk about more specific conclusions between gut bacteria and social behavior. Obviously, the journal article was narrower in its discussion while the news article used some other outside sources also to provide more background knowledge. In general the news article’s tone was more exciting and intriguing while the journal article was more just direct and informative, but both were in agreement of facts. Unlike more news articles, this one did a good job on summing up all the results and relating them to other findings from other research as well, to give a more rounded and hopeful feel to the reader. The only difference I could see, was that the journal article was stating results on the fact that gut bacteria can affect social behavior and the popular press article used this information to title and explain how these results could possibly treat mental illness, which is a little bit of a stretch because at this point research has not reached that stage of treatment. I assume the popular press news article did this, as it draws more attention the article and
The news article was a summary of the scientific article but in laymen terms, so it could be informative to a bigger audience. The news article made the conclusions more relatable to real life and easier to understand. I could tell that both articles were in agreement because the main results of the study were depicted almost identically. From reading both articles I got the same sense of what materials and methods were used in the study, what hypothesis was being tested, what results were found and what conclusions could be made. Something that stood out was that the news article used the statement from Dr. Timothy Lu, “There’s a symbiotic relationship between the two sides, human and bacteria” to emphasize what the point of relating gut bacteria and humans was, while the journal article just used more scientific facts and terms to talk about more specific conclusions between gut bacteria and social behavior. Obviously, the journal article was narrower in its discussion while the news article used some other outside sources also to provide more background knowledge. In general the news article’s tone was more exciting and intriguing while the journal article was more just direct and informative, but both were in agreement of facts. Unlike more news articles, this one did a good job on summing up all the results and relating them to other findings from other research as well, to give a more rounded and hopeful feel to the reader. The only difference I could see, was that the journal article was stating results on the fact that gut bacteria can affect social behavior and the popular press article used this information to title and explain how these results could possibly treat mental illness, which is a little bit of a stretch because at this point research has not reached that stage of treatment. I assume the popular press news article did this, as it draws more attention the article and