In this blog i will be discussing whether or not science should be only for scientist. i personaly think that certain scientific finds should be shared with the public, such as the minor ones you would be able to find in a mens/womens health magazine. for example how to tell if the opposite sex is interested in you. this is mainly a sort of pop psychology thats just a bit trivia and a bit of fun to know. however i would say that more important scientific findings do not need to be shared with the public. for example if a new method for treating depression was found, somebody with no psychological background may attempt to practice it on a depressed family member for friend and if done wrong could have serious consiquences. there does need to be a limit on what counts a scientist, for example students are not scientist but they should be allowed access to the same materials as the proffessional.
In conclousion i think that only certain parts of science should be made public but all scientific discoveries should be made visible to all if someone is so interested in it they go out of their way to find it.
ryan1392 
I think there isn’t a need for psychological research to be written in layman’s terms because there is no demand for it coming from the public. For those who do enjoy reading scientific journals and occasionally stumble across something they don’t understand the internet is there to explain it to them in simpler terms. I am sure that like myself many other psychology students simply google terms they are not familiar with whilst they are reading a scientific journal. Yes I think important research that could affect the public directly should be published in more simple terms because the whole point of research is to expand our understanding and benefit us. When I say important research I am referring to like new drug side effects for example.
Good post 🙂
I disagree that only certain parts of science should be made public. I actually think we have a right to know what discoveries are being made and the effect they may have on us. Take for example, the swine flu epidemic. To the average Joe, the media made out that everyone was going to die and it was a huge deal. Yet with a family in the medical profession, I knew better. The virus was relatively mild, and the pandemic was not at serious as the media made out. Although people did become ill, and few numbers died, thousands of vaccines had been made, and in fact, there was nothing to worry about.
If the research had been reported correctly and properly in the first place, people would have known the facts and would have realised there was nothing to panic about. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/swine-flu). As you can see in this image, one paper reported that cases were mainly in the top 3 categories of severity, yet in fact, this was probably not the case. We were even told the pandemic threat level had increased from level 3, to level 4, which caused panic. What were not told is that there are actually 6 levels!
Its always been said, that people panic less when they know the facts, which although may be controversial, I think is actually true, and highly important.
Pingback: Comments for TA – 21/2/12 | alhoward
Pingback: Homework for my TA week 5 « itsstats
I would disagree that only certain psychological findings need to be made available to the public. I would argue that there any unnecessary use of jargon within research papers seems like elitism and snobbery. I do not believe that jargon should be used to ensure that only scientifically-minded individuals can understand research papers and results. Also, there is the issue that many studies are funded by taxpayer money, is it fair to prevent the people that are helping to fund these studies from properly understanding the very research they are supporting?
I disagree with the original poster ryan1392. Firstly, I can’t help but notice that although other comments have posted their opinion on whether scientific research should be put in laymans terms, no one is yet to mention the part in your post that you say ‘minor research’ should be posted in health magazines. When is Psychology research considered minor?! I would argue that no research could be considered ‘minor’ and that all research is considered important in relative terms to the aims.
Second, I believe that Scientific research should become more accessible and not be just for the scientists. There are many websites such as Psychology today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/) which already take the scientific research and put it into layman’s terms so it is easily readable and unlike poster ‘itsstats3453’ I believe there is a demand because just look at the success of that website, it is ten years old and extremely popular. Not only should it be written in layman’s terms more research should be accessible online. We have websites such as Science Direct (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/externallogin) which are only accessible if you have subscribed to them so basically meaning that public access is difficult. Even as a student I have found a research study that seems perfect but I cannot access it because Bangor University has not signed up for a subscription. As a student and like the layman we can’t afford to pay lots of money for them.
To conclude, I believe that no research should be considered minor and there should be more for all which includes better presentation for the layman and better accessibility on line for all.
Pingback: Blog Comments « All About Psychology
i agree with most of your point yet i disagree that the most important findings should be hidden from the public as they are the finding that are proberly the most beneficial to the public for example when it comes to anti depressents neew drug research on their effects is significantly going to braoden the opportunities of a depressed person
in response to itsstats3453 :
I have to say I disagree with you, there is a demand from the general public. Simple psychology websites and magazine articles are becoming more and more popular. Although, yes they could simply google the terms they don’t understand, but if they have not studied Psychology at all, that is a LOT of googleing they’ll be doing. Research should be understood by anyone who’s interested in it.
Not all research should be given for access to the public. There are very sensitive studies out there which are kept from us for good reason such as nuclear technology should be kept from terrorists for example. However, within the field of psychology I fail to see any reason why research should be censored and I don’t think it is. Most research out there is open for people to see, it’s just a question of how hard they are willing to look for it.
The majority of people are not interested in psychology further than the sort intermittently reported in the sun tabloid and those who are tend to buy normal science orientated literature. The fact of the matter is that it is hard work to read research journals without prior preparation such as familiarisation with psychological theories and statistical concepts. It’s easy to say that research journals should perhaps be written more in layman’s terms but isn’t that just dumbing it down? Surely the whole reason why researchers write the way they do is that it is the most optimal way to communicate their ideas in a concise way as is possible.
So called jargon may put off some of those inclined to read these papers but the jargon is a shorthand way of writing about a larger concept. It is so researchers understand each other better. Furthermore scientific journals are not available for any Tom Dick or Harry because they cost money to write which is for paying the wages of those who create them. To conclude, if members of the public are that interested in scientific literature then they should consider going to university, otherwise they can make do with things like these!
http://www.newscientist.com/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammind/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/subscribe/sem_google.cfm?ec=ggl07&gclid=COb7p4rdsq4CFYUgfAodFzvdQg
http://science.howstuffworks.com/
There’s also crap like this one too:
http://www.psychologies.co.uk/subscribe-offer/
Pingback: Comments for the TA 22nd Feb « captkebab