The media has been helpful in promotion, enhancement and the advancement of scientific breakthroughs. An excellent media profiling and reporting can have a considerable impact on the popularity and the recognition of scientific research and findings. Science tends to be a separate and detached sphere, and the media serves as an intermediary of the seemingly distant scientific domain and the society. The media serve the society in becoming more knowledgeable about scientific works and increasing scientific literacy. Specifically, the media were supportive in describing the studies and findings in the field of biopsychology.
Generally, the media tend to support the findings of many Biopsychology researchers. For example, an article published in the International New York Times entitled The Closest Strangers reinforced the notion about the role played by genetics in human existence. Several research revealed that identical twins have a remarkably very close bond, as exemplified by the case study of two identical twins who were reunited after being separated since their infancy (Segal, 2014). The article has some hint of controversy because it caters for the case of twins who have never had a chance to know each other after one was given for adoption right after their birth. Further, the article also points to the finding that identical twins are found to share a stronger bond, compared to fraternal twins. Another controversy that was noted in the article was the claim that the reunited twins have felt closer to each other after just recently reunited, compared to a sibling who with whom a twin was raised. A closer examination of this report leads to noticing an element of debatable findings, leading to the premise that media tend to trigger controversy when reporting about biopsychological findings.
The observation that the media portray biopsychological reports in a disputable and controversial manner is again demonstrated in another article entitled Elementary, Dr. Watson: the Neurotransmitters Did it (1994). The report revealed a controversial findings about the relationship between genetics and hereditary disorders that generally affect men, triggering their impulse to be violent. Yet, despite the findings, many scientists remain cautious about arriving into a conclusion on the existence of a single gene that can cause violence. While the media report tends to lend credibility to the findings, further reading and examination of the presentation reveals the uncertainties associated with the reports and findings. For instance, while the report indicated the existence of genes that can trigger violence, another part of the article indicated that there are other factors that can explain violent behavior. In another statement from a medical practitioner gene are not only the determining factor that explains violence.
Another debatable article entitled Did Your Brain Make it, which was authored by Monterosso & Schwartz narrates about the issue in the manner of thinking and the neuroscientific explanations of certain behaviors. Throughout the observation, the research revealed that there are physical laws that tended to determine brain functioning, and that the two types of elements that affects behavior, psychological and biological are firmly different (Monterosso & Schwartz, 2014). At the end of the article, the author wrote about the importance of not succumbing to the appeal provided by neuroscientific studies. There should be more focus on the cause and effect explanation of certain behavior. This argument indicates an instance when the media demonstrate impartiality when reporting.
References
Angier, N. (1994). Elementary, Dr. Watson: The neurotransmitters did it. International New York Times.
Monterosso, J., & Schartz, B. (2012). Did your brain make you do it?International New York Times.
Segal, N. (2014). The closest of strangers. International New York Times.
