Should lay versions of scientific journals be published?

Question

Nature, Science, Cell etc
should they publish versions for non scientists
thereby increasing the general publics understanding of science

Answer 1

Absolutely.


Alot of people would pay more attention if it was put in words they could relate to.

Answer 2

I think the news media tries to take the newest discoveries as reported in those journals and others and make a news piece.

I think that the general public needs to be better informed. But they read little and understand little of the real scientific material.

It would be a good idea if someone (like Readers Digest used to do with condensed books) wrote good summaries and published them. The problem that could occur is that as things are simplified they tend to gain inaccuracies. I have had articles proofread by editors and changed so that they were not accurate.

I would like to see in schools more done on scientific discoveries and more reading in the programs. Perhaps here, where there is a teacher to answer questions, is a place to use the simplified journals. There are also some of the public that are interested and willing to read.

Answer 3

There already are plenty of lay versions of science magazines: Scientific American, Discover, Popular Mechanics, Smithsonian magazine, Odyssery magazine, National Geographic. They all do a great job of bringing science to the general public in terms they can comprehend.

The problem with writing lay version of actual journals is that the details, which are at the heart of the studies, would be lost. Most articles in science or nature when translated for the general public would be tedious and boring. Reviews which take into account multiple studies and the trends in a field, then relating it to the larger body of knowledge, seem much more appropriate for the general public to me.

Answer 4

No, because the vast majority of articles in scientific journals report in detail, with supporting data, a tiny piece of work in a small segment of a subfield of a subcategory of science. The intended audience is peers working in the same field. They are meaningless and incomprehensible to even a very intelligent person who isn't already knowledgable in that field. No amount of journalistic work can change that.

Instead, look to articles which either offer a comprehensive overview of a segment, or report a new development but include enough supporting overview material to place the development in context. Good choices which come to mind are Scientific American, Science News, New Scientist, and Discover.

These help, but aren't enough to make up for the serious deficiencies in public schools in the US. Get the government and the unions out of them, and we can begin to make progress there.

Answer 5

There is a very important place for the journals. Think of them as trade magazines.
There are also plenty of science mags. for the non-scientist. "New Scientist" is the best.