Brittany Christopherson's Comments on a reading in Penrose and Katz

"Comments on An Endangered Species in the Stomach"

I believe that Blaser did a wonderful job adapting his article for a broader audience. He used several different methods that, when combined, were inviting of attention and interest, and applicable to everyday life.

Firstly, Blaser instantly captures the reader's attention through the use of an engaging title. "What is this article about? Endangered species in the stomach??? What lives in a stomach anyway? And aren't bacteria the bad guys? Why would we want them to not disappear?"

The following question is a direct appeal to application that grabs the focus of another section of the potential audience: policy makers. Blaser uses this method throughout his article. He answers the earlier question in the reader's mind: "why do we care and why should we research/ financially support research of this stuff?" Another of example of this method occurs at the conclusion of the article when Blaser offers some future questions or avenues of possible research. An application appeal keeps the reader engaged because it answers some central questions, primarily the "why?" question of the audience.

Another strategy Blaser uses is that of analogy and connecting to commonly used words in everyday language. We can picture what a "closest companion" is and what is meant by something, or someone, having "home court advantage." We have seen a clock so when Blaser makes the connection to the study of migration is like a clock, the reader has a mental picture of how much faster we learn more about migration patterns from genetic sequences of the bacteria ("minute hand") than mitochondrial studies ("hour hand"). Another analogy was used to describe how the CagA secretion system, a fairly daunting term if not unpacked, works by describing it as being like a hypodermic needle. Blaser also utilizes the method of definitions and comparisons. In the article, he defines vacuoles as "large holes," something an average person can visualize. To illustrate how incredibly diverse the strains are genetically, Blaser compares the genetic difference between humans and chimps to the genetic difference between two different strains of H. pylori bacteria. It is somewhat a appeal to wonder as well because there is somewhat of a shock value in this comparison: chimps are a completely different species from humans, how can two strains of the SAME species are exponentially less similar to each other than we are similar to chimps?

A couple of final strategies that jump out when analyzing this article is the general use of chronology and narrative writing. This is kind of the bread and butter when it comes to writing for the public audience because a wider audience is able to connect easier to a narrative account. Furthermore, articles can be quite a daunting task to get through. Blaser used a box to quickly summarize the key points so that if the reader got lost along the way, they could be reeled back in and brought up to speed. He also provided some suggestions for further readings. By doing so, if the reader's interest in bacteria was piqued by the article, Blaser has provided a street for the reader to wander down and venture deeper into science.

One last point I want to mention is just something that made me wonder as a reader when looking at the article. I was intrigued by the color choice of the opening graphic. Though our textbooks are black and white, the caption for the picture describes that the stomach is red and the esophagus is green. Was this intentionally used to subconsciously drive home the point of the harm to the stomach and the help to the esophagus? Red is generally perceived as stop or danger. Green, on the other hand, may be interpreted as go or good. I found this potentially unintentional use of perceptual cues very effective for the author's purpose in writing the article.

A quick note about the chapter: in my Research Methods class, Dr. Teder often makes a distinction between the true story and the "grandmother story." This is very similar to the idea behind adapting writing to a public audience. The real story is often dry and loaded with intricate details and technical jargon (i.e. "thirty participants were selected using a stratified random sampling method..."). The public story, or the story you tell grandma when she asks what you do at work, usually is more general and narrative (i.e. "well, we picked thirty different people..."). Often we do this without really thinking about adapting. If you fall on the ice and someone asks you if you are alright, you don't reply that you have a contusion of the inferior region of the posterior aspect of the right greater trochanter, do you? Isn't the reaction just, "I'm good, just bruised my hip."? Just curious.