It's all about me.

After reading the pieces for today I believe I'm starting to form some sort of science writing hypothesis (to use scientific terminology). That is "it's all about me." As humans, we tend to live in our very tiny microcosm of direct interactions. My cup of coffee, my blanket, my laptop - all within reach. Even the distance put between me and the world by the morning newspaper, where I attempt to reach beyond my tiny town of Bozeman, is delivered to me so that I don't have to walk much further than the front door.

So it makes sense that many of these pieces, even when they are about something as universal as change, eventually relate back to human contexts. Why is that? In some ways it seems that science was tailor-made for humans to unravel. Our mind seems to be able to wrap itself around concepts as complex as DNA synthesizing and a catalog of over a million insect species. But what is it about our tendency to always explain nature in terms of human nature? Is that the key to science writing? Is it really just all about us?

If so, is creating all those similes in terms of civilization in the Atkins piece a superior way to convey scientific information to humans? Or is using mathematics, as Schrodinger does, a more concrete way to explain our world to the lay scientist?

In a way, I think we're all scientists. We all perform our own social science experiments, experiments with the a box of pasta and boiling water, or tolerance to cold, or even the limits of alcohol our blood will hold. As humans we are naturally curious about both our nature and the nature that surrounds us. But how to describe it? What is the "best way" to describe it?

I suppose the experiment has started. I'd love it if anyone could add any data to my little writing laboratory. I suppose that's also the nature of writing. You write and analyze, write more and experiment and see what sticks to the wall. Sometimes you may even invoke God or the lack of him/her - whatever it takes to figure out "why." As Crick stated, "knowing why is more important than knowing what" (30).

Is Organic Food Healthier?

Researchers at Stanford University have concluded that “consuming organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria,” but current studies “lack strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” Their meta-analysis was recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. 

In the past decade, sales of organic foods have increased to more than $26 billion in the U.S. alone, while consumer prices of organic food may be two times that of “conventionally” grown food. But whether or not organic food affects a person’s health is not scientifically clear. The research team, lead by Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler and funded by Stanford University Medical School, studied whether or not there was any statistically supported evidence that consuming organic vs. conventional food resulted in increased health.

Their conclusions could cast doubt on organic food producers’ claims that eating organic is better for you. The research team synthesized a total of 17 human studies and 223 studies of typical food and found no statistically significant data that backs up the claim that consuming organic food is better for your health. Dr. Smith-Spangler concedes that the studies they examined were “heterogeneous and limited in number” and that more research on the topic is needed to draw firm conclusions.

Blog Bomb

I think I'm off to a rough start in this class. I don't think Doug got my blog address, so nobody even knows I'm out here. Then I blogged on the wrong topic. That's what you get for ignoring Deetle.

I had a few ideas pop into my head when I was sitting in class the other day. I think I'd like to focus on something that deals with earth sciences - geology, paleontology, animals, plants and the like. Perhaps agriculture is a good topic to start with. That seems to be on the tip of everyone's brains these days - what is good for you? How do you grow more with less land? What are the implications of diet on humans or animals?

A project that would get me down to Yellowstone would be a welcome change to sitting behind a desk! Perhaps I could find some interesting developments regarding that boiling cauldron of life down south of us. Yellowstone is a hot bed (no pun intended) of research. What scientists discover there has implications that reach far beyond Montana and Wyoming. We're sitting on top of one of the most geologically active places in the world. I'd love to find out more about that!

I'll  ruminate on that a little while longer and see what I can come up with. I'd love to see some comments on this. I hope y'all finally find my blog.

Scientific Perspective

I enjoyed the reading this weekend, though I forgot to blog about it. So here's me playing catch up. I learned a lot from Hancock in just the first two chapters. With only a few writing classes under my belt, I've spent very little time reading about he writing process. Hancock has some solid ideas and doesn't mince words about her opinion on how certain things should be done.

I had to chuckle when she said "teaching undergraduates can be so deadening to a writer: it steeps the mind in sophomoric prose" (6). Is it really that bad Doug? Do you feel dumber after reading our papers?  :)  I guess I see where she's coming from, but I think that it's more important to read what you want to write than NOT to read what you won't be writing. I think reading across all genres helps us develop our writing skills. You never know where you're going to find inspiration or a story. For that reason, I agree with Hancock, though not the way she intended when she said: "we learn at all times" (6). I think she ignores the fact that we also learn by others mistakes.

A lot of what Hancock said was inspiring. It was also surprising. I thought it was important to take away the fact that "some to much of today's research is mistaken or incomplete" (12). She spends a good deal of time telling us that scientists are humans, and that there are a variety of influences, good and bad, that will affect their research and their interactions with you as a chronicler of their work.

What tied it all together for me was the classroom discussion we had today. Hancock asks "what are the limitations of our current ways of thinking" (13)? Like Doug said, much of our writing will come down to which perspective we take. Scientists see our world a bit differently, I would say, than someone like me. My guess is that my way of seeing the world is probably a little closer to the average reader than some guy studying atom smashing. As science writers, I think it's our responsibility to see the world through the atom smasher's eyes and then put that world view into a form that the average reader can identify with. In that way, we are able to do some smashing of our own by dismantling the reader's preconceived notions of how things work in our world.

I think that's what makes a good science story. I think that people read science writing for a variety of reasons, but I think you can grab universal attention by surprising readers with the odd, the bizarre or the downright creepy. And so much the better if you do a good enough job that they'll want to tell their friends and look smart at a party.