Book contents
- Understanding Visuals in the Life Sciences
- Understanding Life
- Understanding Visuals in the Life Sciences
- Copyright page
- Reviews
- Contents
- Foreword
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Photographs
- 3 Micrographs
- 4 Illustrations
- 5 Graphs
- 6 Interactive Visuals
- 7 Infographics
- Conclusion
- Summary of Common Misunderstandings
- Figure Credits
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 October 2024
Book contents
- Understanding Visuals in the Life Sciences
- Understanding Life
- Understanding Visuals in the Life Sciences
- Copyright page
- Reviews
- Contents
- Foreword
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Photographs
- 3 Micrographs
- 4 Illustrations
- 5 Graphs
- 6 Interactive Visuals
- 7 Infographics
- Conclusion
- Summary of Common Misunderstandings
- Figure Credits
- References
- Index
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Understanding Visuals in the Life Sciences , pp. 199 - 206Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Primary Sources
It is possible to differentiate “scientific communication” from “science communication.” Interested readers can refer to Yu, H. & Northcut, K. (2017). Scientific Communication: Practices, Theories, and Pedagogies. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For readers interested in the use of visuals in professional and classroom science communication, Luc Pauwels’ collection is a good starting point: Pauwels, L. (2006). Visual Cultures of Science: Rethinking Representational Practices in Knowledge Building and Science Communication. Lebanon, NH: Dartmouth College Press.Google Scholar
Secondary Sources
Galison, P. (1998). Judgment against objectivity. In Jones, C. A., Galison, P., & Slaton, A. (Eds.), Picturing Science, Producing Art (pp. 327–359). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Holliman, R., Whitelegg, E., Scanlon, E., Smidt, S., & Thomas, J. (2009). Final reflections … . In Holliman, R., Whitelegg, E., Scanlon, E., Smidt, S., & Thomas, J. (Eds.), Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age (pp. 274–278). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
National Science Board (2018). Science and Engineering Indicators 2018. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Trumbo, J. (2000). Seeing science: Research opportunities in the visual communication of science. Science Communication, 21(4), 379–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynne, B. (2004). Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of science. In Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (Eds.), Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (pp. 19–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, B. P., & Doolin, B. (2012). Symbolic communication in public protest over genetic modification: Visual rhetoric, symbolic excess, and social mores. Science Communication, 35(4), 502–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownlee, C. (2006). Nurture takes the spotlight. Science News, 169(25), 392–393, 396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. (2002). Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jabed, A., Wagner, S., McCracken, J., Wells, D. N., & Laible, G. (2012). Targeted microRNA expression in dairy cattle directs production of β-lactoglobulin-free, high-casein milk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 16811–16816.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Surgeon General (1865). Photographs of surgical cases and specimens. Retrieved November 3, 2023, from https://archive.org/details/photographsofsur01unitGoogle Scholar
van Gieson, R. E. (1860). The application of photography to medical science, including a direct process to photograph the microscopic field. New York Journal of Medicine, 8(1), 1–17. I’m indebted to Michael Sappol for this source: Sappol, M. (2017). Anatomy’s photography: Objectivity, showmanship and the reinvention of the anatomical image 1860–1950. Retrieved April 3, 2023, from https://remedianetwork.net/2017/01/23/anatomys-photography-objectivity-showmanship-and-the-reinvention-of-the-anatomical-image-1860-1950/Google Scholar
The rebranded Wellcome Photography Prize focuses on health and medicine, and winning works have been photographs of humans that have a socially charged visual impact rather than pure visual splendor.Google Scholar
Chow, D. (2021). Why scientists are talking about viral load and the delta variant. Retrieved November 22, 2023, from www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/delta-variant-viral-load-scientists-are-watching-covid-pandemic-rcna1604Google Scholar
de Jesús, E. G. (2020). SARS and the new coronavirus target the same cellular lock to infect cells. Science News. Retrieved November 22, 2023, from www.sciencenews.org/article/sars-new-coronavirus-target-same-cellular-lock-infect-cellsGoogle Scholar
Hopwood, N. (2015). Haeckel’s Embryos: Images, Evolution, and Fraud. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Institutes of Health (2020). Novel coronavirus structure reveals targets for vaccines and treatments. Retrieved February 25, 2022, from www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/novel-coronavirus-structure-reveals-targets-vaccines-treatmentsGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. Revised edition. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Overney, N. & Overney, G. (2011). The history of photomicrography. Retrieved February 11, 2022, from www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artmar10/history_photomicrography_ed3.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pennisi, E. (1997). Haeckel’s embryos: Fraud rediscovered. Science, 277(5331): 1435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, R. J. (2008). Haeckel’s embryos: Fraud not proven. Biology & Philosophy, 24(1), 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, M. K., Hanken, J., Gooneratne, M. L., et al. (1997). There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: Implications for current theories of evolution and development. Anatomy and Embryology, 196(2), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Troemel, E. R., Félix, M.-A., Whiteman, N. K., Barrière, A., & Ausubel, F. M. (2008). Microsporidia are natural intracellular parasites of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Biology, 6(12), e309CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watts, E., Levit, G. S., & Hossfeld, U. (2019). Ernst Haeckel’s contribution to Evo-Devo and scientific debate: A re-evaluation of Haeckel’s controversial illustrations in US textbooks in response to creationist accusations. Theory in Biosciences, 138(1), 9–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhou, P., Yang, X.-L., Wang, X.-G., et al. (2020). A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature, 579(7798), 270–273. Cells that expressed mouse ACE2 were an exception and didn’t get infected.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BBVA Foundation Department of Social Studies and Public Opinion (2017). BBVA foundation international study on scientific culture. Retrieved March 18, 2022, from www.fbbva.es/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/dat/Understandingsciencenotalarga.pdfGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, J. (2013). A defense of artistic license in illustrating scientific concepts for a non-specialist audience. In Communicating Complexity 2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 49–60). Rome: Edizioni Nuova Cultura-Roma.Google Scholar
Giaimo, C. (2020). The spiky blob seen around the world. The New York Times. Retrieved March 18, 2022, from www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/health/coronavirus-illustration-cdc.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gross, A. G., & Harmon, J. E. (2013). Science from Sight to Insight: How Scientists Illustrate Meaning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harp, S. F. & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live By (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, S. J., de Bruijn, O., & Curry, M. B. (2000). Exploring the effects of icon characteristics on user performance: The role of icon concreteness, complexity, and distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6(4), 291–306.Google ScholarPubMed
Middleton, A., Milne, R., Almarri, M. A., et al. (2020). Global public perceptions of genomic data sharing: What shapes the willingness to donate DNA and health data? The American Journal of Human Genetics, 107(4), 743–752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, B. J., & McQuarrie, E. F. (2004). Beyond visual metaphor: A new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising. Marketing Theory, 4(1), 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, A. S. (2022). Understanding Metaphors in the Life Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, C. & Dewsbury, B. M. (2018). On the problem and promise of metaphor use in science and science communication. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burke, C. (2009). Isotype: Representing social facts pictorially. Information Design Journal, 17(3), 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairo, A. (2015). Graphics lies, misleading visuals: Reflections on the challenges and pitfalls of evidence-driven visual communication. In Bihanic, D. (Ed.), New Challenges for Data Design (pp. 103–116). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleveland, W. & McGill, R. (1984). Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387), 531–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagerlin, A., Wang, C., & Ubel, P. A. (2005). Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people’s health care decisions: Is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Medical Decision Making: An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 25(4), 398–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friendly, M. & Denis, D. (2005). The early origins and development of the scatterplot. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 41(2), 103–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia-Retamero, R., Galesic, M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2010). Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect? Medical Decision Making, 30(6), 672–684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosara, R. (2016). Stacked bars are the worst. Retrieved November 15, 2023, from https://eagereyes.org/techniques/stacked-bars-are-the-worstGoogle Scholar
Mitropoulos, A., Brownstein, J., and Bhatt, J. (2021). COVID-19 vaccinations finally starting to stem pandemic’s tide in US: Analysis. Retrieved April 7, 2022, from https://abcnews.go.com/Health/covid-19-vaccinations-finally-starting-stem-pandemics-tide/story?id=77514759Google Scholar
Pew Research Center (2015). American trends panel wave 6. Retrieved November 15, 2023, from www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/16/the-art-and-science-of-the-scatterplotGoogle Scholar
Romano, A., Sotis, C., Dominioni, G., & Guidi, S. (2020). The scale of COVID‐19 graphs affects understanding, attitudes, and policy preferences. Health Economics, 29(11), 1482–1494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryan, W. H. & Evers, E. R. K. (2020). Graphs with logarithmic axes distort lay judgments. Behavioral Science & Policy, 6(2), 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbot, J., Setlur, V., & Anand, A. (2014). Four experiments on the perception of bar charts. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20(12), 2152–2160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tufte, E. (2001). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press LLC.Google Scholar
Yang, B. W., Restrepo, C. V., Stanley, M. L., & Marsh, E. J. (2021). Truncating bar graphs persistently misleads viewers. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10(2), 298–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2024). COVID-19 vaccinations by county. Retrieved November 20, 2023, from https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#county-viewGoogle Scholar
Cooper, S., Khatib, F., Treuille, A., et al. (2010). Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature, 466(7307), 756–760. Supplementary information. Retrieved November 22, 2023, from https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fnature09304/MediaObjects/41586_2010_BFnature09304_MOESM302_ESM.pdfCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, S., Treuille, A., Barbero, J., et al. (2010). The challenge of designing scientific discovery games. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, L. (2010). Computer game makes you a genetic scientist. WIRED. Retrieved May 5, 2022, from www.wired.com/2010/11/phylo-gameGoogle Scholar
Hirst, J. D., Glowacki, D. R., & Baaden, M. (2014). Molecular simulations and visualization: Introduction and overview. Faraday Discussions, 169, 9–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center (2022). The demographics of COVID. Retrieved November 20, 2023, from https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/racial-data-transparencyGoogle Scholar
Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center (2023). Cumulative cases over time. Retrieved November 20, 2023, from https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/animated-world-mapGoogle Scholar
Kawrykow, A., Roumanis, G., Kam, A., et al. (2012). Phylo: A citizen science approach for improving multiple sequence alignment. PLoS One, 7(3), e31362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khatib, F., DiMaio, F., Foldit Contenders Group, et al. (2011). Crystal structure of a monomeric retroviral protease solved by protein folding game players. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, 18(10), 1175–1177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baxter, M., Lonsdale, M., & Westland, S. (2021). Utilising design principles to improve the perception and effectiveness of public health infographics. Information Design Journal, 26(2), 124–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. L. (1997). Political Cartoons in the 1988 Presidential Campaign: Image, Metaphor, and Narrative. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Krum, R. (2013). Cool Infographics: Effective Communication with Data Visualization and Design. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, M. & Lonsdale, D. (2019). Information visualisation. Retrieved May 26, 2022, from www.researchgate.net/profile/Maria-Lonsdale/publication/330825479_Design2Inform_Information_visualisation/links/5e32c86a458515072d6f3ee7/Design2Inform-Information-visualisation.pdfGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polman, J. & Gebre, E. (2015). Towards critical appraisal of infographics as scientific inscriptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 868–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stones, C. & Gent, M. (2015). The 7 G.R.A.P.H.I.C. principles of public health infographic design. Retrieved May 26, 2022, from https://visualisinghealth.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/guidelines.pdfGoogle Scholar