Just analyzing this mechanism as it is, a biological response for both the pupae and the adult ants, […]

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Do you really believe the average person would understand this? This is already scientific jargon which most people wouldn’t understand correctly. Well, let me be truthfully I had to look up the scientific definition to verify if it is accurate. So what is wrong with making it accessible? Your hate-speech is just pointing at inaccuracy and the entertaining way of that online magazine. And I kept stating it is okay and they have their right to exist. And do you really understand why? Because they make science accessible and interesting.

If you really work in science, what made you work in science? The money? I hope not. I bet a curiosity that is rooted or at least was expanded by consuming exactly these inaccurate, false, but entertaining articles and documentaries. If it’s not you, what I would doubt, then ask your colleagues why they ended up in science.

So in my eyes, organizations like sciencealart and their way of rewriting scientific publications, are playing their part in the science world, even when it is inaccurate and aspects are false.

Then please give an example for describing the situation scientific accurately. But please make it accessible for the average people.

Well, all your arguments can be summarized in “projection of human behavior” onto those ants and pupae.

Okay, let’s go down this rabbit hole.

Do you really think anyone would express her/himself by avoiding this “projectionism”? I don’t think it is even possible. You see this projection in every aspect of our life.

“Time/Computer/etc. is running” “The train is coming” “The wind is blowing” “The storm is raging” “The city never sleeps” “The phone died” “Time flies” “The night wrapped its arms”

And many, many more. You find those projections everywhere. And you know why? Yes, exactly! They help you understand the situation better. So what’s wrong with using then here too?

No, this article is not “unscientific bullshit” as you say. It is actually pretty accurate. Let me just repeat the main scientific and accurate aspects for you: The producing of smell was already known. Dr. Dawson used this finding to research behavior. And she found out, the smell is the cause of this killing behavior: They put the smell onto a non-infected pupae, but workers still killed it. Another funding is, isolated pupae do not produce this smell. They produce it only when workers are nearby, making the assumption it is costly to b produce and most effective when workers are near. So you could say “young ants beg for death when sick”

Nothing wrong for me.

The only pseudoscience I see here, is your unproven assumptions your comment.

Did you read the source? I guess no.

"Our data suggest the evolution of a finely-tuned signalling system in which it is not the induction of an individual’s immune response, but rather its failure to overcome the infection, that triggers pupal signalling for sacrifice. "

And as for sciencealert, their goal is to make science accessible to anyone. I think there is nothing wrong with also engaging it in an entertaining way. They also link the sources, so they are much better than other clickbaiters and you can read through original article to verify their writings.