D2: Analyse the positive and negative impacts of science in the media.
In this task I will be talking about the positive and negative impacts of science in the media. Media is
a communication tool used to deliver information, which nearly everyone is addicted to.
The media is an important source of information for the public. From university research findings to
scientific journals and conferences, the media directly impacts the decisions of consumers including
what they buy, eat and believe in terms of food. As information passes from researchers to press
officers to journalists to the public and misinterpretation of messages can take place at any stage,
accidentally or deliberately. Simple things like learning how to check sources and understanding
some basic scientific concepts can help us identify which information to trust
When thinking about the media in a positive way and how it contributes to the public's perception of
science is positive, because the way how media presents science makes people mindful of things it
can do and what it is not. Of course, people are going to have alternate points of view, but the
information is most often presented. There are times when the information in terms of presenting
science in the newspaper article is not always positive.
For instance, I have discovered an article which expressed that Ebola virus has adapted in order to
more efficiently infect human cells. In my opinion an article like this will raise anxiety, abashment
and arouse about the fact that humans have increased chances of being infected with the EBOLA
virus. This implies that the media does not have a positive contribution in the public's perception of
science because it makes individuals irritated. That the science is not going to be able to treat the
EBOLA and people are more likely to die from it.
The media contributes to the public perception of science in a negative way because people tend to
be more worried that before. It additionally features the restrictions of science which implies that it
is unable to treat various issues. This additionally implies individuals may believe that the
researchers are concealing something from the public. For instance, when they state that they are in
the process of finding the cure for a disease, they may imply that there is no cure at all and perhaps
that infection is untreatable.
Lastly, another article I have taken out from the recent news was about whether mutations in our
genes always means that there is something bad that is happening to our organisms. The article
states that we tend to think that when there is something wrong with our genes it means that we
are under the risk of getting cancer, however, that is clearly nor the case. Something has been
discovered called a supressed mutation which is said to not affect the health of the individuals.
There are times when individuals do experience the ill effects of disease when they get these side
effects be that as it may; there is generally safe of that. The researchers have guaranteed that this
supressed change is going to help with the improvement of the medication for treating cancer
growth.
Subsequently, this implies the media has contributed emphatically to the open's impression of
science; this implies individuals are bound to see science in a positive manner since it could be used
to build up the medications for cancer growths. This decreases the negative picture on the science as
it could be used for something great.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30199004
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324936.php
https://www.eufic.org/en/understanding-science/category/science-in-the-media
In this task I will be talking about the positive and negative impacts of science in the media. Media is
a communication tool used to deliver information, which nearly everyone is addicted to.
The media is an important source of information for the public. From university research findings to
scientific journals and conferences, the media directly impacts the decisions of consumers including
what they buy, eat and believe in terms of food. As information passes from researchers to press
officers to journalists to the public and misinterpretation of messages can take place at any stage,
accidentally or deliberately. Simple things like learning how to check sources and understanding
some basic scientific concepts can help us identify which information to trust
When thinking about the media in a positive way and how it contributes to the public's perception of
science is positive, because the way how media presents science makes people mindful of things it
can do and what it is not. Of course, people are going to have alternate points of view, but the
information is most often presented. There are times when the information in terms of presenting
science in the newspaper article is not always positive.
For instance, I have discovered an article which expressed that Ebola virus has adapted in order to
more efficiently infect human cells. In my opinion an article like this will raise anxiety, abashment
and arouse about the fact that humans have increased chances of being infected with the EBOLA
virus. This implies that the media does not have a positive contribution in the public's perception of
science because it makes individuals irritated. That the science is not going to be able to treat the
EBOLA and people are more likely to die from it.
The media contributes to the public perception of science in a negative way because people tend to
be more worried that before. It additionally features the restrictions of science which implies that it
is unable to treat various issues. This additionally implies individuals may believe that the
researchers are concealing something from the public. For instance, when they state that they are in
the process of finding the cure for a disease, they may imply that there is no cure at all and perhaps
that infection is untreatable.
Lastly, another article I have taken out from the recent news was about whether mutations in our
genes always means that there is something bad that is happening to our organisms. The article
states that we tend to think that when there is something wrong with our genes it means that we
are under the risk of getting cancer, however, that is clearly nor the case. Something has been
discovered called a supressed mutation which is said to not affect the health of the individuals.
There are times when individuals do experience the ill effects of disease when they get these side
effects be that as it may; there is generally safe of that. The researchers have guaranteed that this
supressed change is going to help with the improvement of the medication for treating cancer
growth.
Subsequently, this implies the media has contributed emphatically to the open's impression of
science; this implies individuals are bound to see science in a positive manner since it could be used
to build up the medications for cancer growths. This decreases the negative picture on the science as
it could be used for something great.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30199004
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324936.php
https://www.eufic.org/en/understanding-science/category/science-in-the-media
