Process Section

        Throughout the process of creating this digital archive, we found that we were repeatedly challenged to step out of our own perspectives in order to find appropriate sources for a variety of different audiences. We were most challenged by trying to find sources appropriate for the “3rd graders” audience. While we did find a couple sources that were valuable in terms of teaching that specific audience about the differentiations that exist between the sexes, we found ourselves becoming frustrated at the dichotemous use of sex and gender (this was present througnout the sources for “non-science adults” as well but especially for the 3rd graders). While we were adamant at first about finding sources that did not use terms such as “man” or “women'', we soon found this to be a futile endeavor. The concepts of sex and gender are used so synonymously in the non-science frameworks of society that it would have been far more difficult to find sources that referred to only sex specifically. Therefore, this is an example of a time that we had to step out of our own perspectives, where in science/molecular biology the difference uses of terms relating to sex and gender are purposefully used in particular contexts, and accept that that sort of specificity (in regards to sex and gender) may not be as pertinent to others. Alternatively, we believe that this may be a mainstream narrative which is changing with younger generations, where there is more attention paid to gender identity and less focus on the binaries which exist.
        Additionally, while we struggled with using Omeka, we really enjoyed the concept behind this assignment. One of our greatest complaints with science in general is the lack of accessibility for those without a science background. We believe this lack of accessibility, or unwillingness to explain scientific concepts at a level which non-science individuals can understand, leads to the widespread distrust in science that we see today (especially relevant when discussing the coronavirus vaccine). We firmly believe that if we, as scientists, invest ourselves in making science approachable and explaining scientific concepts in a manner which is not condescending, it will make people more trusting in science as well as curious to learn more.
        Through our consultation with Reiko Yamada, we were able to construct an archive that contains an organized flow of scope as a whole work as well as within each audience category. Our vision for the architecture of our database is to start with the most general information that branch-out into sources with more focus that narrow the scope and build upon the general information. This can be observed as a whole work when viewed in the order of 3rd grade, non-science, and peer scientist sources. This is also visible within each collection, most notably in the peer-scientist sources. The first source is a video that covers the significance that lead to a research paper. The second item is a review article of that paper. The third is the paper itself, which directly addresses and builds upon the information previously stated in the previous sources. This paper addresses future application to understanding sex-biased diseases. The remaining sources are smaller, more focused papers that that identify specific sex-biased diseases, building off the information from the larger paper. By transitioning our scope from broad ideas to narrow focus, our archive provides easy to follow information that builds upon itself to most effectively inform our audiences.
        One dialogue that exists in this archive is that between two separate non-scientific sources, specifically the “Always Changing and Growing Up” when compared to “The Biology of Sex, NPR Radio Hour''. The “Always Changing and Growing Up” is a puberty video meant to educate elementary aged kids about the differences that exist between males and females as well as the changes that occur as a result of those differences during puberty. This video discusses aspects of biological sex differentiation such as chromosomes, hormones, primary and secondary sex characteristics among others. The NPR Radio Hour informs and builds upon this previous research by breaking free of the societally established “sex binary” (that is taught in elementary school) and explores variations which exist in the criteria used by society to distinguish between the sexes. For example, the first segment of the radio hour interviews intersex activist Emily Quinn and goes into the different types of variation which makes biological sex a spectrum rather than a binary. While these two sources are targeted towards different audiences, we believe they build off each other in terms of addressing the spectrum. It is necessary to understand the binary to be able to explore what comes between it. Additionally, we believe that learning about the differences between sexes should be continuously taught, due to the fact that the ways in which we define biological sex is continously changing as well as our understanding of the implications of these differences in regards to health and manifestation of disease. Therefore, individuals who are learning about differentiation between the sexes can use these two similar sources to expand their understanding of biological sex at different points throughout their lives.
        The archive contains dialogue between sources directed toward the non-science and peer scientist audiences. These two sources share a focus of heart disease beyond the primary theme of differentiation between sexes. A diagram from the non-science collection depicts “Heart Attack Warning Signs” in men and women. The purpose of this chart is to educate the general population about how to recognize an oncoming heart attack by the most commonly associated symptoms. By documenting a divergence of symptoms between sexes for the same medical emergency, this resource provides a foundational example of how diseases can present themselves differently between men and women at the physiological level. An editorial publication from the peer-science collection talks about “Decoding Sex-Biased Gene Expression Patterns in Heart Disease.” This paper addresses disease phenotypes for cardiomyopathy and differences in clinical outcome for men and women at different stages. By demonstrating an example of sex-biased gene expression in disease, this builds upon the discussion of physiological differences between men and women, but takes it a step further to address phenotypic differentiation. While the target audiences of these sources are different, the significance is the same: men and women are affected differently by conditions such as heart disease. The diagram addresses physiological difference, while the editorial focuses on the molecular level. To fully understand the impact of the genetic variance between men and women, one must recognize some of the physiological implications of these differences.
        This archive also incorporates dialogue between sources belonging to the same target audience, peer-scientists. An example of this is the “Sex-Biased Gene Expression” video and the Naqvi et al (2019) research paper, “Conservation, Acquisition, and Functional Impact of Sex-Biased Gene Expression in Mammals.” Both of these sources were produced by the research lab of Dr. David Page at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research at MIT. The video summarizes the general research framework, as well as the significance for understanding sex-biased traits in order to treat sex-biased diseases. The video proposes the fundamental question of the research, which is whether sex differences in gene expression have functional significance. Naqvi et al addresses this question and demonstrates it through the study of height difference between males and females. The paper identifies significant association between height and conserved sex-biased gene expression in autosomal genes. The paper displays much of the same background information regarding the importance of finding trait consequence for sex-biased expression in application to disease treatment, however this information is well summarized by the video. By providing a visual and auditory component to help understand a complex paper, the peer-scientist audience may have a better understanding of the big picture and be able to more directly engage with the findings and significance of Naqvi et al.