Practice Questions for Introduction to Science Communication

In the hypothetical advert from the video, a drink is ‘scientifically proven to boost your immunity’. Why could this be a poor science explanation even though the sentence is easy to understand? What would you need to know before accepting the claim?
Using the definitions in this lesson, how does scientific communication differ from science communication? Why is an immunologist explaining immunology to a physicist doing science communication?
Why do I consider communication part of doing science? Explain how describing methods and reporting evidence allow others to contribute to scientific progress.
Researchers find that an immune protein increased after people drank a particular drink. What is the observation, and which further claims would require more evidence? Explain why more immune activity does not automatically mean better health.
Why might a biologist and a person without a science degree need different explanations of cancer immunology than their qualifications initially suggest? What should you find out about an audience before deciding what to explain?
How should an explanation change when it is spoken in real time rather than written? How can a graph help the explanation, and how could its scale mislead the audience?
What distinguishes dissemination, dialogue and participation in this lesson? Give an example of each and explain why the communication goal matters when choosing between them.
Why might giving someone more scientific information fail to resolve their disagreement? What could dialogue help the science communicator understand?
How would you introduce ‘autoimmunity’ to someone unfamiliar with the term? Explain why good science communication does not always mean removing technical terms.
Why can translating ‘statistically significant’ using the everyday meaning of ‘important’ mislead an audience? What should you preserve when translating scientific ideas between languages?