In my Programs in Writing and Rhetoric course, I wrote a paper on the problems with communicating science to the public, titled The Dubious Credibility of Scientific Studies. My paper was published in Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology, and Society Volume 10. The link to that volume is below. My paper is the second listed under Research Papers. The abstract is as follows:

​

The current process of undertaking, implementing, reviewing, and finally publishing a scientific study is riddled with flaws, as the study results are subjected to many biases and interpretations at every level between instigation and publication. As a result, when these studies finally reach the public, they are often depicted in ways that don’t parallel the genuine results, and are at times utterly incorrect. Industries touting their products, scientists influenced by grants and prestige, reviewers adhering to personal political agendas, and journalists pressed to sell papers, all in turn contribute to the inherently skewed depiction of scientific results to the public. These factors have allowed for a highly unpredictable credibility in scientific reporting, an observation that has been highly overlooked and disregarded. The dissemination and publicity of this incorrect or skewed information, which is believed to be scientifically accurate, can have a detrimental affect on the public in their everyday lives.