Introduction

Throughout all my years in public education, I was taught to follow a rigid structure and only communicate facts to figures of authority. Prior to taking this class, I had no knowledge that people were actually able to communicate information to an audience that could transform complexity into clarity. Oftentimes, when I find myself reading scientific journals for my STEM classes, the IMRAD structure would befuddle me. I would scroll past the lengthy data and ask myself whether I would ever be able to decipher all the numbers associated with explanations. I initially thought this class was going to have all students read and report back on numerous journals throughout the course. However, that was not the case, and I honestly enjoyed learning about the different ways science is communicated to an audience, Henrietta Lacks’ impact, and conducting my own research for major essays. Now, I can successfully say that I am able to navigate the complexities associated with challenging topics, clarify certain aspects to better comprehend, and communicate my findings to an audience; all thanks to this course.

Exploring Genres and Rhetorical Situations

The Informative Review’s purpose was to effectively present scientific findings to the secondary audience, without taking a position. In my paper, I was able to communicate complex scientific topics (gene mapping and heart disease) in a clear way while acknowledging ethical concerns surrounding how Henrietta Lacks’ cells were obtained without informed consent, which was the purpose of the informative review paper. The audience consisted of readers unfamiliar with the scientific language, which is often hard to decipher, as well as people who may distrust science because of structural racism in healthcare. The structure is as follows: introduction, background information, discussion of the medical advancements made possible through HeLa cells (gene mapping and CRISPR), ethical concerns about consent and racism in science, information regarding heart disease, and a conclusion. The style was formal; I used clear language, explained complex terminology, and data from trusted sources to help communicate information without taking a position.

The purpose of the sustainability position paper and group SPSA video was to examine the relationships between artificial intelligence and sustainability. My paper’s main focus was to persuade readers that AI can support sustainable development only if it is developed ethically and used to assist humans, rather than replace them, in relation to Governor Hochul’s 2026 State of State Address. The audience included state representatives and health policy professionals. The structure is as follows: introduction presenting contrasting viewpoints about AI and sustainability, a clear thesis statement, supporting paragraphs using evidence and research, a counterargument and rebuttal discussion of Governor Hochul’s AI initiatives, and a conclusion (with a call to action connected to the nonprofit organization, NAMI). The paper follows a formal style and is meant to be persuasive. Additionally, the group SPSA is a call to action video, bringing awareness on AI being used in healthcare. It is meant for a broader public audience as it targets the general public through short, engaging, and visual communication. It follows a similar style as the paper, but the structure is slightly different. It starts with a hook, next the the cons of AI diagnosis, then how AI can aid the healthcare field alongside data, and a non-profit organization (call to action). 

The purpose of the research proposal paper was to propose and justify new research by identifying a gap in existing studies. I chose to focus on studies related to caffeine, oxidative stress, and brain function in working adults. I essentially wanted to study how caffeine affects cognitive performance and brain response when taken alongside over-the-counter pain medications, such as acetaminophen. My audience consisted of science professors and researchers. The structure of the proposal followed the standard scientific format (IMRAD): introduction, background, methods, and outcomes. The introduction explained the motivating research issue and included the hypothesis: caffeine may improve the brain’s response rate and decision-making ability in the frontal cortex when combined with OTC medications. The background section covered caffeine and summarized previous scientific studies about acetaminophen toxicity. The methods section included scholarly research articles that would be used to analyze and support the hypothesis, while also discussing the strengths and limitations of those studies. Finally, the outcomes section explained the anticipated benefits of the research and argued why additional studies on caffeine and cognitive performance are necessary. The style of this paper is formal and evidence based. 

My research presentation focused on explaining how caffeine may influence brain response and decision-making when combined with over-the-counter pain medications that include acetaminophen. The purpose of this genre was to communicate scientific research findings and hypotheses in a clear and engaging way for a community audience unfamiliar with complex scientific concepts. The presentation aimed to show why the topic matters in everyday life, especially because many adults regularly combine caffeine and pain relievers without understanding the possible effects on the brain. The audience included classmates and the instructor. The structure of the presentation included an introduction with a strong hook, explanation of why the topic was chosen, background information on caffeine and acetaminophen, discussion of the research gap, methods and source analysis, hypothesis and outcomes, and a concluding discussion emphasizing public awareness and the need for further research. The style was informative. An example from the presentation was discussing the 2020 mouse study that examined how caffeine affected brain antioxidant status and mitochondrial respiration in acetaminophen-treated mice. To watch the whole presentation, click here.

Applying Linguistic Variety To Inform Secondary Audiences

Linguistic differences can impact science communication to a significant extent. This is because many scientific writings are often written in standard American English and complex vocabulary that may not be accessible to all audiences. When science is communicated in highly technical language, it can create barriers for second-language learners or individuals who are unfamiliar with even the most basic scientific terminology. This can lead to misunderstandings, reduced engagement, and even distrust in scientific or healthcare information as audiences feel excluded or spoken down to. However, when science is communicated using a simple manner, it becomes more inclusive and easier for diverse audiences to understand.

Science writers should apply linguistic differences by adapting their language to meet the needs of their audience rather than expecting all readers to interpret complex (scientific) terms. This includes simplifying key terms, avoiding unnecessary jargon that may confuse the readers, using examples from everyday life, and incorporating visual aids/shortened versions of a word to increase understanding. In my informative review paper, I presented the contributions of HeLa cells in the medical field, gene mapping, and heart disease to a secondary audience unfamiliar with scientific concepts by prioritizing explanations, real life scenarios, and simple data. For instance, I define key terms like “gene mapping” and “clinical research” using clear language, while backing them up with real-life examples to make the information less intimidating. This would help ensure the audience understands both the science and the ethical issues surrounding Henrietta Lacks without feeling overwhelmed by terminology. In my group SPSA video, visual imagery played an important role in making the message (of AI supporting sustainability in the healthcare field) more accessible. For example, we used health related icons, charts, and branding that helped simplify complex ideas and made the content easier to follow for viewers who process information more visually than textually.

I do believe that people who speak other language varieties can resonate with the PSA video because it consists of a short message, strong visuals, and minimal text, all which reduce language barriers. The focus on imagery (AI, healthcare related icons) and bolded heading helps communicate meaning even if the viewer does not fully grasp every detail. Additionally, if people are interested in learning more, the video provides a QR code, leading to a non-profit organization that helps communicate AI’s impact on science and is working to make it more reliable to the general public.

Developing Strategies for Reading Science Articles, Drafting, Collaborating, Revising, and Editing

Science writers should consider language differences and institutionalized racism when writing about science because these factors directly affect how people trust and engage with scientific information. If science is written only in highly complex standard American English, it can exclude readers who are second-language learners or those who are not familiar with academic vocabulary. In addition, historical experiments and ongoing structural racism in the scientific field has created mistrust in many colored communities. Due to this issue, scientific writing is not just about sharing facts, but more about building trust while acknowledging those who had been mistreated. In my informative review paper on gene mapping, heart disease, and Henrietta Lacks, I addressed issues by using clear language and defining scientific terms such as gene mapping and cell research so that non-science audiences could understand the content. I also intentionally avoided overly technical jargon and instead used explanations to break down complex ideas. In addition, I acknowledged the ethical concerns surrounding how HeLa cells were taken without informed consent, and I recognized how this history contributes to distrust in science and healthcare today. By doing this, I aimed to show respect for readers’ potential concerns while still explaining the scientific importance of HeLa cells in medical advancements like gene mapping and heart disease research (including new technologies like CRISPR).

From the sustainability project, I learned that it is not only about environmental protection, but also about how technology impacts the entirety of the human system (ex: healthcare, employment, and mental well-being). I also learned that AI systems can unintentionally reinforce inequality when they are trained on biased or incomplete data, based on articles provided in class, which connects directly to environmental and social justice because certain groups may experience worse outcomes or reduced access to fair treatment. In my position paper, I used a combination of evidence-based arguments, real-world examples, and a counterargument to clearly explain the benefits and risks of AI in healthcare. I structured my writing to show both sides of the issue before defending my position, which helped make my argument more balanced and credible while also using Governor Hochul’s 2026 State of State Address. To make the topic more accessible, I used scholarly sources to support claims about job displacement, and connected complex ideas to everyday experiences, such as people using AI chatbots for health advice or emotional support. For the visual, I chose an image where a human is facing AI to emphasize concern. The image helped reinforce my main message that people depend heavily on AI, however, when people utilize the free tool for diagnosis, they must be careful as it is not a professional. The visual served as a way to immediately communicate the tension between technological advancement and social responsibility. A challenge in the group PSA project was making sure that all individual topics connected under one clear message. Since each person had a slightly different focus on AI and sustainability, it took discussion and coordination to ensure the slides had consistent branding and flow. We overcame this challenge by dividing roles early, communicating, and reviewing each other’s work to make sure everything aligned with the group’s overall message.

To identify a niche for my research proposal, I first reviewed existing studies on caffeine, acetaminophen, and brain function to understand what had already been well-researched. I noticed that most studies focused on the individual effects of caffeine or acetaminophen separately and that there was limited research on how these two substances interact specifically in terms of cognitive performance and decision-making in the brain. From this gap, I narrowed my focus to how caffeine may influence brain response when combined with over-the-counter pain medication in adults. I also identified that many studies measured biological or chemical effects but did not clearly connect these findings to specific brain regions, such as the frontal cortex, which is responsible for decision-making. I used the CCNY database for finding my source and they were mainly peer-reviewed, scientific journals.

The peer-review process for the informative review paper was beneficial in terms of expanding my writing. The classmate who completed the worksheet for my essay said that, “The connection of Henrietta Lacks and modern genetic research is clear, but could be strengthened by explicitly talking about how her case influenced modern consent policies and public trust in medicine. A better analysis of how history affects marginalized communities today could help make the connection more powerful”. This helped me add more depth into one of my body paragraphs, “Although these issues raise ethical concerns, there were no legal requirements for doctors to obtain permission from patients prior to using their biological data for research (Stanford Blood Center, 2025) during that time. But, in 2013 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) granted the Lacks family controlled access to Henrietta’s genomic data through the NIH-Lacks Family Agreement (“Update to HeLa”, n.d.).” Overall, the peer review process strengthened my ability to revise my own writing.

Negotiating Writing Goals and Audience Expectations

Informative Review: Henrietta Lacks 

To adapt my writing for a general audience when explaining HeLa cell advancements, I focused on making complex scientific ideas understandable and using simple yet formal language. I also made sure to acknowledge the history of structural racism in science by addressing how Henrietta Lacks’ cells were taken without informed consent to acknowledge feelings of distrust, especially among communities that have experienced medical discrimination. Additionally, instead of separating the science from the ethics, I connected both by showing that scientific progress and ethical responsibility must be discussed together. This helped create a more balanced and respectful narrative. Overall, I aimed to inform readers about the importance of HeLa cell advancements while also validating concerns about fairness, consent, and historical injustice in science.

Position Paper and Sustainability Public Service Announcement Group Project

In my position paper, I connected my target audience, which are state representatives and health policy professionals, by focusing on how artificial intelligence impacts real-world systems like healthcare, employment, and social equity. I used a formal tone and supported my claims with scientific studies and credible sources. I also structured my writing to show both benefits and risks of AI, which aligns with how policymakers evaluate complex issues before making decisions. By connecting AI to sustainability through healthcare efficiency and ethical concerns like bias and job displacement, I made the topic relevant to decision-makers who influence funding, regulation, and public health systems. One example of how I supported my thesis was by using research showing that AI can improve efficiency in healthcare, such as assisting physicians with imaging analysis and data processing, while also highlighting its risks (algorithmic bias and job displacement). I argued that although AI has the potential to improve sustainability in healthcare systems, it must be developed ethically to prevent harm to vulnerable populations. Therefore, this evidence helped reinforce my thesis that AI is only sustainable when it prioritizes ethical development and human well-being.

In the PSA video, the language was kept simple and easy to understand so it could reach a general audience that may not have a background in science or AI. Instead of using heavy technical terms, we used short phrases and clear messaging that focused on awareness and call to action. It had consistent branding and relevant visual icons to make the message more engaging. The color scheme and transitions were also chosen to create a professional but attention-grabbing tone. Furthermore, images such as AI-related graphics and medical symbols supported the message by visually reinforcing the connection between technology and healthcare.

Presenting Research Proposal

To adapt my audience to my science issue, I focused on making complex concepts more visually and narratively accessible in my voiceover presentation. Since my topic involved caffeine, acetaminophen, and brain response, I used bullet points in my slides and clearly explained topics rather than using dense technical language. I also structured my presentation like a story, starting with a real-life scenario that many people relate to; working adults consuming coffee and pain relievers in the same day. This ensured the audience could immediately connect with the topic. In terms of visuals, I used diagrams and icons to help explain abstract ideas, such as how caffeine affects alertness in the brain and how acetaminophen is processed in the body. 

I believe that there is significant value in presenting research orally because it allows the audience to engage with the material in a more direct way. The tone and engagement plays a crucial role when it comes to conveying information to various groups of people. It also allows the presenter to guide the audience’s attention and highlight the most important points in real time. For instance, I had to create an engaging introduction that grabbed the audience’s attention before presenting my information. Additionally, compared to a written essay, I did adjust my writing strategies in numerous areas. For instance, in written form, I used more detailed explanations, citations, and formal academic language. However, in the oral presentation, I had to reduce the amount of information per slide and focus on key ideas rather than full explanations. Overall, this shift required me to think more about clarity, timing, and audience attention.

Closing

To conclude, my perception of writing in the sciences has evolved across the different scientific genres. In the informative review, I learned that scientific writing is not just about summarizing research, but also about translating complex ideas, like gene mapping and HeLa cell research, into language that is accessible to secondary audiences. In the sustainability position paper, my understanding shifted toward seeing science writing as something that can be persuasive and engage the audience to act on an issue. By collaborating to create the SPSA video, I learned that AI can benefit the healthcare industry without displacing professionals and positively impact sustainability. In the research proposal, I learned how to better analyze academic journals and became familiar with identifying gaps in existing research. Finally, in the research presentation, I realized that science communication must adapt heavily to audience needs and that storytelling in oral communication is helpful. Thus, this semester has immensely strengthened my abilities as a writer and allowed me to take risks when communicating information to a diverse group of audience.