Physorg is carrying a report on the Huntington’s disease study I just wrote. I’m still quite new when it comes to writing articles on scientific reports so I find it interesting when a more mainstream, professionally trained journalist writes about the same thing I did.

The article is quite a bit simpler than my report. After reading the article from Physorg and then re-reading my own article, I think both of us missed the target. I feel theirs is a bit too simple, leaving out some important details (although it does accurately portray the main points of the study) while mine was a bit too technical, getting bogged down in little details along the way. Perhaps we just have different audiences, as I like to keep my articles tailored to people that have a decent level of knowledge on the subject of molecular and cellular neuroscience.

Either way, it was interesting to read another perspective of the same article. Writing concise, accurate and interesting reports on scientific material that appeals to a large audience is much more challenging than I originally thought. I’m constantly trying to improve how I write. I think I’ll try to simplify more difficult concepts and avoid smaller, technical details as I continue writing.

That said, this line just made me laugh:

Goldman’s team set up a one-two molecular punch as a recipe for generating new medium spiny neurons, to replace those that had become defective in mice with the disease.