I hope with the rise of open access science we can start to link more directly to scientific papers.

I don't hope for this because I think most people are interested in literally reading the scientific papers front to back (I mean... what scientists even do that lol... I mean the proof-reader of the paper does I guess hopefully right?). Rather I think normalizing the practice of linking to the literal scientific paper the lazy slop journalism choking to death in ads is loosely riffing on provides a place for the impulse reader to go when they are frustrated for a similar reason.

It is easy to forget as a scientifically educated person (Which I define as someone who was priviliged enough to be consistently encouraged to study science in school or on their own time growing up for the sake of the enrichment that came from learning science for the sake of learning) that just because someone who isn't equally privileged in scientific knowledge can't point to what is so uninteresting and boring about the vapid pop-science article doesn't mean they don't sense the same thing.

This isn't about having memorized scientific concepts or not, it is a basic human sense of when someone is wasting your time with bullshit vs. showing you something real and unexpectedly raw. It is the rush that theater people are always chasing as performers, the privilege of coming into contact with something that is as undeniably authentic as authentic can be (truth being freed from the corruptions of non-fiction in art).

People who don't know the first thing about science are going to tap on that article and be disappointed too... and if there is a link to the actual scientific article... maybe they will tap on that in frustration... and NOW we have a moment where scientists can connect with the public that late-stage capitalism and empty AI journalism can't jam itself inbetween.

We need a new form of abstract (I am sure people are already thinking about this, not trying to come off as this thinking this is a novel idea) that can be rolled out to that person in that brief window of opportunity that doesn't necessarily overwhelm with details but also doesn't lie with easy simple exaggerated narratives that an editor at a pop news organization will ultimately demand in the popular science news article.

We should remember that the magic scientists are driven to explore doesn't need to be explained to the public, people already know that feeling intimately, we just need to show them HOW we are chasing that magic in our work, which fortunately for scientists is often easier than we think. Science is fascinating, unexpected, and far more interesting than our feeble imaginations can fathom which isn't to insult humanity but rather to acknowledge how damn long evolution has had to build its artworks. The competition simply isn't fair.

Look at the massive rise in youtubers covering technical subjects at length in hour long videos whether it is about science, home rennovation, gardening, succulents.. whatever.. The delusion of the moment is precisely that we have convinced ourselves that we are unique in desiring an authentic, complex and nuanced truth. The differences between us arise between where we allow that complex, manifold space to exist and where don't (science or art vs religion vs authoritarian rulers/ideologies etc..).