Arsenic in Bangladesh: A Source Comparison

News articles often sacrifice detail and clarity in their drive for catchy headlines. However, they can serve as a means for distilling important scientific information to an uninformed public, as does Henry Fountain’s “In Bangladesh, Findings on Arsenic and Water”, published by the New York Times. The primary source he derives his information from is the study “Redox trapping of arsenic during groundwater discharge in sediments from the Meghna riverbank in Bangladesh”, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This paper describes the highly elevated concentrations of arsenic in subsurface sediment around a river in Bangladesh, and hypothesize that the chemical reactions result in a barrier (‘iron curtain’) being formed around the river that prevents arsenic from entering the water. The secondary article briefly summarizes the information from the paper.

The fact that the primary article is written for a scientifically literate audience alters not only the style the information is presented, but also the content. The audience an article or journal is written for sets the entire tone for the article, as we can see in these two examples. Not only that, but each type has a different purpose. Fountain’s article for the Times is a very readable piece for the general public, but lacks in the full detail that is necessary for an objective and scientific study. But this is not it’s purpose; that job falls to the scientific research paper.

Primary sources go into great detail on one the results of one experiment under various conditions. This is a great strength of the scientific study, specifically “Redox trapping of arsenic…”, but also for the published research in general. By giving great detail in the milligrams of arsenic per kilograms of soil in each of the nine sites and providing detail and figures (such as maps, tables, and graphs) to support the points being made, primary sources provide far more convincing arguments. The fact that the secondary article does not go into the same amount of detail can confuse some of the points trying to be made, and mislead the audience. For example, “…the sediments form an “iron curtain” to keep the arsenic out of surface water in the river. But recycling of these arsenic-laden sediments to the…aquifer may lead to further groundwater contamination.” (Fountain, 2009) However, in the research paper, the authors only refer to the possibility of further groundwater contamination as an alternative, among several others. By placing a possible claim next to a proven one, the author of the secondary source misleads the audience into believing that point be more concrete and supported than it is. Therefore, going into detail on the concepts and experimental results is a definite strength of primary research reports.

There are several benefits to a short distillation of information compared to a lengthy report. The secondary article gives as much or more space to context as to new experimental results, which is vital in fully understanding the information. The primary article is comparatively limited in the amount of background information it presents. Every convincing argument must begin with the reader understanding enough about the subject to be aware of why the information is being presented, and in what context. The news article accomplishes this better than the research paper, which could be considered a strength.

In conclusion, each type of article has limitations and strengths. The condensed quality of a news article can lose information and detail, but gain in readability and context. The length of a scientific research paper provides the detail necessary to prove and support new, experimental claims, but loses the ability to appeal to a wider audience. It is because of the audience that each of these pieces function the way they do. Together they make up a system that creates and disseminates knowledge, for which we can all be grateful.

References

Fountain, Henry. (Sep 21 2009) “In Bangladesh, Findings on Arsenic and Water” New York Times. Accessed Oct 6, 2009, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/22obarsenic.html

S. Datta, B. Mailloux, H.-B. Jung, M. A. Hoque, M. Stute, K. M. Ahmed, and Y. Zheng
(July 30 2009) “Redox trapping of arsenic during groundwater discharge in sediments from the Meghna riverbank in Bangladesh”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States. Accessed Oct 6, 2009 from
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/09/18/0908168106.abstract