One of the strongest core memories from my childhood is story time with my grandfather. He performed rather than narrated the stories, complete with voice modulations, songs, and role enactments, breathing life into the fables. I have forgotten most of the details of the stories over the years, but the memory of how they made me feel remains strong. Similarly, avid readers often find that they may forget the plot details of a book that they loved, but they remember the emotions it evoked.
The reason I am mulling over why certain stories resonate with audiences is because this is a milestone year for our publication. This year, TS turns 40—yes, it’s been that long—which gave me an excuse to dig into our archives. It’s no surprise that through the decades we covered an impressive spectrum of science. But what made certain stories reader favorites or instilled a sense of satisfaction in the writer had a common denominator: the emotional element.
With the ease of digital access, readers can glean information from just about anywhere these days. So, while staying informed is a huge motivator, what makes a story compelling for readers is largely tied to how it made them feel. In our experience, readers responded strongly when they felt inspired by a fellow scientist’s achievement, dismayed at funding cuts, conflicted about a breakthrough, proud of a mentee’s success, or tickled by a quirky explainer, to name a few.
AI can provide research summaries, and with the right prompts, some of these might even be accurate, but the raw emotion that writers draw out of scientists during interviews is hard to replicate.
—Meenakshi Prabhune, The Scientist
In this AI age, where quick content is the norm, this trend reassures me that the value of in-depth reported pieces that involve a lot of work and time still exists. AI can provide research summaries, and with the right prompts, some of these might even be accurate, but the raw emotion that writers draw out of scientists during interviews is hard to replicate. Thankfully, emotional intelligence has not been outsourced to AI models yet.
As you peruse this issue, I invite you to put my theory to the test. See what stands out to you in an article, and why it strikes a chord. I will refrain from spoilers but here’s a teaser of what’s included in this issue: We report on the rumored link between tattoos and cancer, feature an integrity-driven forensic biologist who turned vigilante to uncover a lab scandal, and cover the journey of a violinist-turned-cancer-epidemiologist who made an impact in HPV research and vaccines.
We are just at the start of this introspective 40th year, but one thing is clear—The Scientist was, is, and will remain a publication that values scientists. We will continue our mission of partnering with scientists, reporting on the latest trends and research, and showcasing inspiring researchers. We promise to continue bringing human stories written by human writers to our human readers. Lastly, a tip for those searching for AI-written content indicators: The lack of human emotion—not the innocent em dash—is the real giveaway.
