Being able to read a scientific paper for yourself is powerful. When you read a news article or read something online, being able to go straight to the source and to parse out what a researcher really did and saw is immensely useful. But part of the difficulty with scientific papers is that they’re not written for everyone. Scientists are mainly taught to write and talk about their work to other scientists. Luckily, science papers are written with a common structure. When I’m reading a science paper or just talking to a scientist, I look for five key parts in their story: the context, the question, the methods, the conclusion, and the so what? So if you want to read a paper yourself or talk to your nephew who works in a lab, here’s what I look for:
I learn about the processes of science, how we know what we know, and how to build a bridge between scientists and the general public. Today’s field notes are about breaking down scientific papers and talks. How do scientists talk about their research, and how can you untangle their sometimes overwhelming explanations?
When I first open a research paper or start talking to a scientist, I look for the context, the background that explains the existing knowledge in their field of study.
Then I try and figure out what their question is, what gap in the world of knowledge that they’re trying to fill. This is arguably the core of science. Asking questions.
Once I know what question the scientist is asking I want to know how they’re trying to answer it.
This is the part of the paper that I usually skim, the point in the conversation that my eyes glaze over and I start thinking about what I want to eat for lunch. Methods. How is the scientist trying to answer their question? Scientists are generally trained to be super specific about this because their goal with methods is usually to make sure another scientist could replicate their work and verify their findings. They might tell you step by step the entire recipe, and where they got the milk and at what temperature it sat in the fridge. Personally, I don’t try and follow every last thing. I try to pick up the big idea. Are they counting dolphins, weighing proteins, getting lost in the woods, learning how to teleport, and I might come back to this part once I have a better grasp of the rest of the story.
Alright, things are starting to come together. We have a vague idea of where the science takes place, the question that fuels this scientist, and how they’re trying to answer it. Now the big finale. The results and conclusion: What have they found out? What’s the answer?
And honestly, the answer will probably be that they’re not actually sure and they’re thinking of a wholly different question now. Because that’s really what science is about. It’s not about reaching conclusions, it’s about the journey. Science isn’t the facts themselves, it’s the methods of how we find those facts. And analyze them, and apply them. Science is a series of methods we use to interrogate information.
Our questions are really never fully answered, because we can always ask, was our answer wrong? But you might not care about that, and that’s okay. Remember, I started by naming five
components I look for in a science story: context, question, methods, conclusion, and so what.
That’s the last part, and the most important question I think you can ask a scientist. So what? I know that you care, but why should I care? How is this relevant to me? Why is this important to my life?
I said science was all about questions and the journey, but those questions and methods are supposed to lead to answers, and those answers are supposed to make the world a better place.
The process may never reach a complete conclusion in the same way a story ends, but we can still use that knowledge, the best of what we find, while we’re working on the sequel, to improve
the world.
