Write a reflection that critically analyzes your Informative Review Essay, focusing on how effectively it communicates to a non-scientific audience, particularly those who may struggle with English or hold distrust toward science due to historical structural racism. Evaluate the clarity of your title, visuals, and language, identifying any terms or formats that might confuse or alienate the audience. Reflect on whether your essay addresses ethical concerns and acknowledges lived experiences of racism or classism in science. Consider alternative ways to present the information, such as informal language or different formats like videos or posters, to better engage and support the audience's understanding.

Reflection on Restructuring the Informative Review for Accessibility and Inclusivity

After reading what I wrote about, I can conclude that there are several areas of improvement that I can have when focusing on average Americans as the audience of the essay. My topic on “HeLa Cells in Outer Space” gave a challenge, as the information needed to be in depth but also digestible. Upon reviewing, I found that the audience that my paper is best suited for was the academic setting. The formal tone of the paper was effective for this, but in order to make the essay informative to the average American, it requires more explanation to the nuance of the subject. This means to explain the details more plainly and language that is understandable to the reader, as well as structuring the essay in a way that flows well for the general audience.

Adapting the Title and Structure

The current title “Research in HeLa Cells in Outer Space” is an informative one that helps a specific reader look for information on the topic easily. However, if we wanted to write this for the average person, the title needs to be more engaging and creative, that pulls the reader more invested in the subject. Using hyperbole, for example, could make the reader more invested. So a title like “The African American Woman that Helped Us Reach Outer Space”, will engage the audience. They start to question “who is this woman?”, “how did she help us get to outer space?”, “when did this happen?”, and so on. These questions help the reader go past the title and read more on the subject.

Simplifying Language

Another thing to look out for is the language. When explaining scientific claims and findings from research, it is important to not assume that the audience understands what it is that you are saying. Phrases like “propagation rate” or “lysogenic bacteria” can confuse the reader as they may not understand these words. It can be also beneficial to create footnotes that explain certain words. This makes the reader be able to follow along with what you say.

Addressing Structural Racism and Historical Distrust

Another issue is the structure of the essay itself. Going back to the change in the title, if you are going to mention “African American Woman” within the title, then it is important to explain who that person is, their background, what they experienced, and what major events led them to be the person of change. In my essay, I jumped into speaking about HeLa cells and what they are. Instead, it is best to explain the history of Henrietta Lacks and go on to show how we ended up with the HeLa cells. 

Another thing to highlight within this structure of the essay, is to emphasize the play in structural racism in science. Henrietta Lacks’ cells were used without her family’s knowledge and it isn’t a surprise that the person who took those cells made a story of how a nonexistent white woman was actually the one that he took the cells from. It is key within the paper that the reader understands the play within racism as well as showing other historical examples of how it played a key role in society. By doing this, the reader gets a broader and more clear picture of the history and the milestone that was hit because of it.

Visual Aids and Medium

My paper does not have any visual imagery, and I feel like if I were to put more images and diagrams of HeLa cells and them in space, then I would be able to give the average reader a better understanding of the topic.

Conclusion

Adapting the review to a more informal format with simplified language, empathetic storytelling, and engaging visuals could reduce the obstacles between science and the general public. These changes would address the responsibility for science writers to inform while getting rid of the barriers created by language, cultural distrust, and historical injustices. Reframing the paper would not only make it more accessible but also create more trust and inclusivity, which are essential for science communication in diverse communities. This helps the population be interested in these complex fields, which would generally be difficult to pursue and master without any love for the subject.