Simplifying science means more than just making science understandable for people of lower chronological age, it also encompasses making science more accessible to people with a lower educational age. Through their “Embryo Tales,” Ask a Biologist discusses topics such as fetal alcohol syndrome, ectopic pregnancies, polio, etc. and the science behind them in an easy-to-understand manner. The Ask a Biologist materials are directed at a younger audience in terms of educational age compared to most textbooks and other sources, which allows them to communicate information to people who otherwise may not comprehend the science at hand. As Ask a Biologist states, their main goal is to “increase communication between scientists and the public” (Ask a biologist). They increase the cognition of the public by using a readability level checker to keep each sentence easy to understand, implementing well thought-out analogies throughout the article, incorporating helpful pictures, and including an engaging, related story at the beginning of each article. This thesis explains studies both for and agains those techniques aiming to make science-related topics more understandable. The thesis encompasses some of my own Embryo Tales with an analysis of them, highlights my role in shaping Embryo Tales into what they are today, and also details how I will apply what I learned to my career as a future physician.

Endometriosis is a medical condition that involves abnormal growths of tissue resembling the endometrium, which is the tissue that lines the inside of the uterus. Those growths, called endometrial lesions, typically form outside the uterus, but can spread to other reproductive organs such as ovaries and fallopian tubes. Endometrial lesions swell and bleed during menstruation, which can cause painful and heavy menstruation, as well as infertility. As of 2021, there is no cure for endometriosis, although medical therapies such as birth control pills and GnRH analogues can treat the painful symptoms of endometriosis. More than eleven percent of women between the ages fifteen and forty-four in the US have endometriosis, which can often decrease a woman’s quality of life due to painful symptoms and impair her reproductive potential.

People have known about mass biodiversity loss and the human actions that drive it for decades now, and yet we have largely failed levels to change our behavior to protect the environment. What’s failing to motivate people to change? Some conservation psychologists have partially blamed the negative way we communicate about environmental issues for paralyzing audiences into doing nothing because they feel helpless to change such a big problem. Instead, many psychologists have called for using positive emotions in communication to motivate an audience, but there’s still little research showing whether that’s a more effective approach or not. To study whether positive or negative emotions are really more motivational for inspiring change, I looked at how different emotions were used in the discourse about an emerging conservation technology called de-extinction as a case study. De-extinction claims to be both a tool for fighting biodiversity loss and for inspiring more positive and inspiring narratives in conservation. In this thesis, I examine those claims by exploring five emotions that the discourse around de-extinction elicits: fear, guilt, grief, awe and hope. I examined the motivating power of those emotions and what kind of actions de-extinction discourse motivates or fails to motivate through the way it uses those emotions. I found that de-extinction discourse erases negative emotions and boosts positive ones as many conservation psychologists recommend. However, de-extinction discourse accomplishes this in misleading ways: it minimizes the sense of importance of ongoing extinctions by framing extinction as a reversible phenomenon, and it overstates the ability of technology alone to combat the extinction crisis without requiring societal change. As a result, de-extinction discourse could risk making the public less motivated to take personal action to forward conservation goals. I conclude that positivity or negativity should not be the central concerns for motivating action, but rather efficacy and honesty.