Scaling the Waters

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/science/30obshark.html?ref=science
 

            This story covers an interesting new discovery about the scales of shortfin mako sharks, a dangerous fast-swimming shark. The article is one of the newer installments of Sindya N. Bhanoo’s “Observatory” section; and as such, it is short and to the point. Like her other stories, this well-written piece has a solid lead that basically tells you all you need to know: “Amy Lang, an aerospace engineer from the University of Alabama, and colleagues found that flexible scales around the side of the shark allow it to swiftly change direction while maintaining a high speed.” Aside from a good lead, Bhanoo does well in efficiently communicating the details of the research, and she even gives a nod to its practical importance: “Dr. Lang is now trying to create models of the shark scales in her laboratory, with hopes of finding real-life applications…‘it could be used in the rotors of the helicopter blade, parts of a submarine or a torpedo.’”

            But the lead as cited above is the second paragraph, not the first. The first paragraph contains the one minor blunder in the entire article: “The shortfin mako shark is one of the fastest sharks around, perhaps because of the variation in size and flexibility of the teethlike scales embedded in its skin.” The problems with this opening paragraph are that it doesn’t make the interesting find clear enough (that the sharks actually use these flexible scales to speed through the water), and that it belittles the importance/intrigue of the discovery by not focusing on it enough. The word “perhaps” makes the whole thing seem trivial and not worth the reader’s time. Perhaps the reader will just stop reading. 

War in Bits

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/science/28robot.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science

            As robots become more and more advanced and artificial intelligence begins to sneak up on human intelligence, the discussion of intelligent “war machines” tends to break out more frequently and more fervently. It is a controversy, for sure. Is it ethical to have robots fight our wars for us? This feature article, written by John Markoff, begins at an Army combat training facility in Georgia where military engineers are remote-controlling the newest breed of intelligent war machines. Markoff uses this as a starting point to jump into the ongoing controversy—one that is growing more relevant with every day as advances in robotics are made all the time around the globe.  

            The lead, consisting of a short one-sentence paragraph and a longer second paragraph, is very effective: “War would be a lot safer, the Army says, if only more of it were fought by robots…New robots—none of them particularly human-looking—are being designed to handle a broader range of tasks, from picking off snipers to serving as indefatigable night sentries.” Markoff is capitalizing on a subject that is incredibly relevant to us and our lives: war and our place in it. As a result, the reader is engaged immediately from the first two paragraphs. It is also gripping because of the common fear that robots may “take over the world,” and so readers want to read on and learn more about the progress of the field thus far. And Markoff, objectively and clearly, gives them that background information they seek.

The Tablets of Ancient Mathematics

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/science/23babylon.html?ref=science

            What if our number system was not based on the number 10? (In fact, there is a common system that is based on 2: the binary system—which is often humorously described as the way dolphins would count with their two flippers). But how about a system based on the number 60? That was how the Sumerians did it in the ancient world, and this article is about the Sumerian math tablets of long ago.

            For a rather dry subject after the first few paragraphs, Nicholas Wade writes a solid, engaging story here. He starts out with a great lead that compares these ancient tablets to the technologies of the modern world: “Papyrus, parchment, paper…videotape, DVDs, Blu-ray discs—long after all these materials have crumbled to dust, the first recording medium of all, the cuneiform clay tablet of ancient Mesopotamia, may still endure.” There’s a good deal of math in the middle section of the article but it is somewhat interesting for its differences from the decimal system; and Wade does pick it up towards the end by mentioning the well-known Pythagorean theorem. He adds an element of mystery by suggesting the possibility of the Babylonians discovering the theorem before Pythagoras did. The ending, however, is a bit lacking—perhaps if he had ended with an interesting quote from a scientist/mathematician, the story would end on a stronger note and keep the reader thinking. Instead, the last paragraph simply reads, “With some tablets the answers are stated without any explanation, giving the impression that they were for show, a possession designed to make the owner seem an academic.”

Tiger Love

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/world/asia/22tiger.html?ref=science

            Whether it’s their vibrant orange fur, their stripes, their menace, or their elusiveness, tigers attract us all. But tigers are in trouble. There are more of them in captivity than in the wild, and global forces have begun to unite and strengthen their efforts in protecting the tiger from extinction. This article, written by Leslie Kaufman, discusses the initiative of Russian Prime Minister Vlaidmir V. Putin in the battle for tiger preservation. The two-sentence lead paragraph is as follows, “Ministers from several countries gathered Sunday in St. Petersburg at the invitation of Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to begin a five-day meeting with the goal of protecting tigers. Only a little more than 3,000 are estimated to be living outside captivity.”

            It’s a solid lead that hooks the reader with the alarmingly low number of tigers left in the wild. From this lead, it would be safe to assume that the reader will learn more about the status of tigers in the wild and in captivity, and about the plans from Putin and others on how to solve the problem. The title of the article would have you think the same thing, that the story was about Putin’s meeting and tiger preservation: “Meeting Aims to Turn Tiger Fascination Into Conservation.” But it is not. Kaufman does not touch on these subjects until the end of the article and she does so only briefly. Most of it is about something completely different: our human attraction to large felines, such as tigers, as opposed to our general disgust with large wild canines, such as hyenas. Right after the lead, she writes, “Mr. Putin is so fond of the animals that he was given a cub for his 56^th birthday…Throughout history, prominent men have identified with the majesty, power and machismo of large cats.” It’s a very interesting topic but it catches the reader a little off-guard with a somewhat misleading lead and title.

The First Butchers

This article can be found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/21/BAE71GCDIS.DTL&type=science

            Here is another example of scientific controversy. Though not as heated and widespread as stem cell research debates, this particular dispute illustrates our fervent desire to learn about the early history of human beings and the great significance we put on the study of paleoanthropology in teaching us. A few months ago, a curator from San Francisco analyzed a few scarred animal bones and claimed they were evidence of human butchering at a time much earlier than was the general scientific consensus.

             The lead is fantastic: David Perlman writes, “A controversy is brewing over a few scarred animal bones millions of years old that a[n]…anthropologist claims could change everything we think we know about when our ancient forebears first used tools on the long road toward becoming human.” Of course, his claims end up being not so ground-breaking, but this first sentence undoubtedly grabs the reader, encouraging them to read on and find out more about their very own beginnings. Perlman also does well in establishing the conflict (other side believes the scars are not from human tools but rather from such things as animal trampling), giving each side their due with appropriately lengthened explanations and a fair number of quotations. He does well in keeping himself out of the controversy, and letting the scientists fight for themselves and explain to the reader their stance.

Primal Friendships

NOTE: This post is for Saturday, November 20

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/science/23obmacaque.html?_r=1&ref=science

            One of the primary ways in which we understand our own behavior is by studying the behavior of our primate relatives. Recently, researchers from Germany have studied the social bonding among male macaques and they have noticed some striking similarities between these Thai monkeys and human beings. This is another “Observatory” article by Sindya N. Bhanoo and she does well in drawing the reader in by giving him/her something to connect with in the first sentence: “The human tendency to form close bonds with people other than kin may have primal roots.”

            The story is concise and clear. After briefly describing the details of the research, Bhanoo quickly moves on to one of the more important questions regarding the study: why is it an evolutionary benefit to form friends? A little more than halfway through, she provides an answer: “The bonds can lead to the forming of coalitions, where a group of males might fight another male to improve rank and social status, the researchers found.” She then quotes the lead scientist, expanding on that observation; and she finishes with questions still unanswered, including the nature of friendships among female macaques. The great thing about this article is that it makes you think.  By establishing the link between these monkeys and humans in the first sentence, Bhanoo successfully engages the reader and makes him/her think about his/her own friendships and why they may be beneficial.

Elderly Hot Jupiter

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/science/23obplanet.html?ref=science

            In the most recent entry of Sindya N. Bhanoo’s “Observatory” column, she discusses the discovery of a hot Jupiter exoplanet orbiting an old and dying star at the edge of our galaxy. The article benefits from a great three-paragraph lead that states the finding, provides a quote from a scientist, and most importantly, explains why it is important: “The finding is important because the planet orbits a very old star that is nearing the end of its life span and may soon collapse…‘The most important thing is to understand how a planetary system evolves, and maybe our solar system will experience the same process in the next two or three billion years,’” said the lead astronomer of the study.

            The problem, though, with this article is that it makes one thing—which seems to be important since it is mentioned in the first sentence—very unclear. In the first sentence, Bhanoo writes that the discovered exoplanet has “origins outside the Milky Way galaxy.” However, in the fourth paragraph of the article, she writes, “Currently, the star and its planet are in the Milky Way.” No further information is given on the stellar system’s whereabouts. How is this possible? Perhaps the star and planet formed outside the Milky Way originally and somehow migrated to our galaxy, but if that is the case, it would have been nice if Bhanoo had made that more explicit and clear in her article.

A Winter Wondercomet

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/science/space/19comet.html?ref=science

            Looks like the peanut-shaped comet named Hartley 2, which was written about by the New York Times two weeks ago, has been displaying some interesting behavior. The first sentence/paragraph reads, “A peanut-shaped comet was spewing out hundreds of tons of fluffy ice chunks a second as a NASA spacecraft swung by it two weeks ago.” Unfortunately, that one sentence is pretty much the entire article.

            Kenneth Chang, a good writer, is cursed here with a particularly uninteresting story. He attempts to make it more appealing to readers by calling it “peanut-shaped” and noting in the second paragraph that a Brown University professor called it a “snow globe that you’ve simply just shaken.” But the story falls short after that. There’s just not enough substance. The finding that supposedly “fascinated the mission scientists” was that the ice chunks seemed to be ejected off the surface of the comet by jets of carbon dioxide: “This was the first time that such carbon dioxide jets had been observed at a comet.” But the average reader won’t find that too phenomenal. Chang delves into the science behind the ice chunks and continues to include quotations from scientists who talk colorfully about the discovery, but on the whole he leaves the reader with little reason to care for such news.

Baby Lawyers

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/science/16obchildren.html?ref=science

            In the New York Times there is a science column under the heading “Observatory” that seems to be regularly written by Sindya N. Bhanoo. The column is a series of very short science news stories published weekly—they’re each only around 200-300 words and they limit themselves to just the bare essentials, just the core of the science. The “Observatory” postings usually begin with an introductory sentence/paragraph that draws the reader in by connecting the science news at hand with everyday life; the second paragraph then states the news directly; the middle paragraphs briefly describe the science and/or experiments, often including statements from the researchers themselves; and ends with some sort of overarching summary sentence or vision for the future.

            This particular story describes new research that suggests toddlers are aware of a person’s intent and that they actually base their actions on such judgments. The organization of the story, more or less, follows the rough template described above. Bhanoo begins by comparing babies to professional adults through this ability to judge: “Understanding another’s intent is an important skill for lawyers, and perhaps politicians and businessmen as well, but according to a new study, it is an ability that even toddlers have.” This brings the reader in and makes them continue to read through the story, especially because it is so short. She also adds important quotes from scientists saying how surprising and exciting this discovery is, and also how useful it is for understanding human society. Bhanoo’s writing is engaging and concise—she draws the reader in, clearly explains the science, and makes the reader care.

Lights, Camera, CELLS!

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/science/16animate.html?_r=1&ref=science

            In this world, humans rely on sight. There must be some ancient detail of our brain that gives such great significance to sight in our perception of the world.

            Our reliance on sight is of special importance to members of academia. In education, how many times have you heard (or perhaps said yourself) the phrase “I need to see it!” Well a recent feature article by Erik Olsen of the New York Times discusses one new way in which biology professors are capitalizing on sight’s importance: molecular animation. The title, “Where Cinema and Biology Meet,” really says it all because the accurate, colorful and incredibly detailed animation of cells is truly a testament to science, the digital age, and our American love affair with Hollywood.

            In fact, Olsen uses this love affair to draw readers in, beginning with a reference to Star Wars: his first sentence, “When Robert A. Lue[, one of the pioneers of molecular animation,] considers the “Star Wars” Death Star, his first thought is not of outer space, but inner space.” Olsen includes a nice, brief explanation of what this innovative field is all about in the beginning of the story, after introducing Dr. Lue: “molecular animation [is] a rapidly growing field that seeks to bring the power of cinema to biology. Building on decades of research and mountains of data, scientists and animators are now recreating in vivid detail the complex inner machinery of living cells.” The story is written very well—it flows smoothly in between the work/quotes of scientists and the capabilities, history and future of these technologies; and Olsen even adds bits of humor/imagery here and there to pick up the reader (“If there is a Steven Spielberg of molecular animation, it is probably Drew Berry”). Olsen also does not take sides: he smartly includes some of the concerns and criticisms other scientists (not directly involved with the animation) have about this technology, saying they “are uncertain about the value of these animations for actual scientific research.” But he does end by discussing the one benefit of this animation that no one can argue with: education.

Rocks of a Rare Earth

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/science/09seafloor.html?_r=1&ref=science

            Rocks are not usually of major popular interest. They are dull and boring and worthless in their abundance, so it seems. This article touches on an economic market related to rocks that, though it has been active for decades, people do not know much about: it is the trade of manganese nodules found on the ocean floor that contain commercially viable elements. But recently, these nodules have been found to have rare-earth minerals, elements that may add significantly to the rocks’ commercial value.

            The writer, William J. Broad, sets up this article nicely. First he describes the manganese nodules, why there is a market for them, and that this market used to be relatively unprofitable. This leads up to the second paragraph: “Now, the frustrated visionaries [entrepreneurs] are talking excitedly about the possibility of belated success, and perhaps even profits.” With this turn, Broad gets the reader excited about the possibilities as well, engages them, and encourages to read on about the benefits of rare-earth minerals and what they can do for technology in the modern world (they’re useful for a host of 21^st century technologies, from lasers to computer chips to LCD displays). After he writes that these nodules contain valuable rare-earths and that China, “which controls some 95 percent of the world’s supply, had blocked shipments, sounding political alarms around the globe and a rush for alternatives,” he dives into the quotes from scientists with a great one-line paragraph in the form of a question: “So are seabed miners smiling at last?” He waits until the middle of the article to fully explain the nature and applications of these minerals—which serves as an interesting spike for the reader as he/she reads. In a fast-paced, exciting article brimming with scientist quotes, Broad ends with one that looks to the future: Dr. Morgan of the Underwater Mining Institute said, “It’s getting more active…Industrial people are starting to look at it again.”

A Gathering of Brains at Caltech

This article can be found at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-science-kids-20101114,0,3971188.story

            In a Los Angeles Times article today, Bob Pool describes two competitions related to science: one was a high school research competition at Caltech; and the other was a Rubik’s Cube competition, also at Caltech. It is no surprise that these two events would take place at Caltech, a mecca of science and technology on the West Coast (along with Stanford) and undoubtedly a dream school for many of the competing high school students.

            Pool makes the article interesting by moving quickly through the specifics with short paragraphs and simplicity. Unlike the typical science news story, there is no technical explanation of the science here; instead, there is just an overview of the different experiments of the competition, involving little or no further explanation beyond statement: students “teamed up to study the effects of titanium diozide and zinc oxide nanoparticles on teeth…examined microfluidic cell trapping for cell fusion and reprogramming…ma[de] computers recognize 57 emotions in human voices…” The quick, simple pace served Pool well throughout the article and into the description of the Rubik’s Cube competition, but there was one spot that was a bit confusing and it was his first sentence: “Over here, it was a battle of brains. Over there, it looked like a contest of dexterity.” The wording here makes it seem as though the “battle of brains” and the “contest of dexterity” are the same event when they’re actually the two different competitions. Perhaps Pool could have worded that first sentence differently so that the reader does not begin in a state of confusion.

Dark Oceans

This article can be found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/13/BA1T1G47V1.DTL&type=science

            It’s shocking, frightening and oddly riveting how much we don’t know about our own earth. One of the most striking examples of this ignorance is our limited knowledge of the world’s oceans. Much of the ocean floor is unexplored and unmapped, and scientists continue to find new species of life on their voyages through the deep. This story tells of a recent voyage in Indonesia, where a group of scientists/technicians from the Bay Area studied the hydrothermal vent communities (of organisms) thriving off the energy of the undersea volcano, Kawio Barat. They got images and plant/animal samples that would add to our understanding of the deep-sea picture.

            The story, written by David Perlman of the San Francisco Chronicle, could be better written. It is clear why New York Times holds the crown for most popular newspaper—its quality of writing is unmatched. In this article, it is difficult to understand exactly what the ‘news’ is for the first few paragraphs. The lead is ineffective. It lacks a clear explanation of what actually happened, as well as reasons why it’s important and why people should care. As a whole, the story is scattered and not aligned to a central idea, making it difficult to read. Perhaps the most interesting quote from a scientist was the last sentence in the story: “This voyage has begun a new chapter in the history of ocean exploration that is certain to reveal many new discoveries that will help us to understand why, and how, the oceans are critical to life on Earth.” If that appeared in the second paragraph and if all that followed built off of that statement, this may have been a stronger story.

A Mistake of Cosmic Proportions

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/science/space/11nasa.html?_r=1&ref=science

            If you think you’re having problems maintaining your budget in the aftermath of the recent financial crisis, just think about the multi-billion dollar budget NASA has to keep. It seems impossible. Maybe it is. Reports came in on Wednesday that somewhere along the line, something went wrong in the financial sphere of things for NASA and a project has run significantly over budget and behind schedule. The culprit: The James Webb Space Telescope, estimated to be “running about one-third over its $5 billion budget and more than a year behind schedule…costing $6.2 billion to $6.8 billion.”

            Kenneth Chang writes a succinct and unexpectedly interesting piece here. He does this by including a lot of great quotes from tons of scientists and administrators at NASA. Some quotes include: “The telescope, [Alan P. Boss said], ‘will leave nothing but devastation in the astrophysics division budget,’” and “’This is NASA’s Hurricane Katrina.’” Chang also includes details on the telescope itself, how this mistake happened, and what the plans for the future are. But it doesn’t seem like much can be done. The extent to which NASA will solve the problem, as Chang’s article suggests, is limited: “the project would need increases of more than $200 million in both 2011 and 2012, and that panel was not able to come up with suggestions for reducing the cost.” Be glad you only have to worry about your own budget, and not an entire division of the national treasury.

Cat-sip

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/science/12cats.html?_r=1&ref=science

            In science, there are many experiments that are done for pure curiosity. Scientists see the world, a question sparks, and they try to answer it. Of course, these scientists operate under the belief that increasing the pool of human knowledge should always be done—knowledge for knowledge’s sake is well worth the effort—because maybe, at some point in the future, this knowledge could become useful. This story is one such case: it’s about the way cats drink. Here’s the lead: “It has taken four highly qualified engineers and a bunch of integral equations to figure it out, but we now know how cats drink. The answer is: very elegantly, and not at all the way you might suppose.” It’s a great lead because it’s unexpected and fascinating—the first half of the story is devoted to illustrating the marvel of feline sipping (and it really is quite cool); then the second half gets more into the details, the engineering, the science.

            It’s a fun story and there’s little mention of any usefulness in this research, but there doesn’t need to be any. Why not find out more about cats? Even big cats use this highly efficient, highly evolved drinking mechanism: “The cat laps four times a second—too fast for the human eye to see but a blur—and its tongue moves at a speed of one meter per second…Lions, leopards, jaguars and ocelots turned out to lap (drink) at the speeds predicted by the formula.” Indeed, many readers may be asking themselves: do we seriously spend money on this kind of research? And smartly, the writer Nicholas Wade provides an answer: “Remarkably for a scientific experiment, the project required no financing. The robot that mimicked the cat’s tongue was…just borrowed from a neighboring lab.”   

Astronomical Bubbles

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/science/space/10galaxy.html?ref=science

            Dennis Overbye is a name that has popped up a lot in this blog for a number of reasons: 1) he mainly writes about space and the cosmos—an area that gets a lot of attention here; 2) he writes for the New York Times, probably the best and most prolific news publications out there; and 3) he’s a damn good writer. Overbye’s latest story is about the discovery of mysterious, giant energy bubbles in the center of our galaxy, and as always, he writes a great one-sentence intro paragraph to draw the reader in: “Something big is going on at the center of the galaxy, and astronomers are happy to say they don’t know what it is.” He’s also got a sense of humor later in the story: “Another option [for the source of the bubbles] is a gigantic belch from the black hole known to reside, like Jabba the Hutt, at the center of the Milky Way.”

            In the second paragraph, he gives the more specific details, including the important and fascinating fact that these bubbles “extend 25,000 light years up and down from each side of the galaxy and contain the energy equivalent to 100,000 supernova explosions.” The first half of the article emphasizes the mystery behind these bubbles (“The source of the bubbles is a mystery” is the short first sentence of the fourth paragraph), as well as the surprise and excitement felt by scientists. Then Overbye moves to the less interesting, more arcane, but still crucial and necessary-to-include science/theory concerning these bubbles. And at the end, he connects this seemingly useless discovery to a popular buzz phrase in science journalism today: dark matter. This helps remind readers why this kind of news is important and why we should care.

The Future of Science

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/science/09predict.html?ref=science

            The New York Times has just recently released a slew of articles for their anniversary issue of the Science Times news section (the first was published on November 14^th, 1978). The common theme of these articles (there are at least 12 of them) is the future of science—predictions for what’s coming up. The section is titled “What’s Next” and the articles discuss possible upcoming discoveries and advances in a number of fields, including medicine, physics, computing, earth and planetary science, mathematics, and material science. This is a great draw for readers because it is a blend of real science and hopeful fantasy. By peering into an unknowable and unpredictable future, the science writers at the Times provide articles filled with excitement, imagination, and possibility—all things that would engage any reader.

            A wrap-up article to this “What’s Next” Science Times section is written by James Gorman and is titled “And Now, Predictions We’ll Back 100 Percent.” It’s a fun, humorous piece about what will definitely not happen in 2011, and it fits in perfectly after all the other articles about the scientific predictions in various fields. This one is kind of like comic relief and also puts everything into perspective by underlining a key point: they are just predictions! In a way, with this article the Times is saying, “Take all this with a grain of salt.” Gorman’s first sentence reads, “It’s a fool’s errand to make precise predictions about the future. Even the famously prescient often fall on their faces.” He goes on to give examples of predictions that have been hilariously off-track; and he makes his own predictions for what won’t happen in 2011—and they can’t be argued with: they include the expectation that human beings will not evolve much in 2011, Neanderthals won’t be cloned, and no humans will be conceived in space.  

The Art of Negotiation

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/science/02obbrain.html?ref=science

            There seems to be a special talent behind effective negotiation and bargaining. This short article by Sindya N. Bhanoo describes a recent study on such abilities: “According to a new study in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, skilled negotiators are using extra brainpower to do so.” This is the lead paragraph that comes right after her very first sentence, “Everyone knows someone who bargains extraordinarily well.” This is a good way to start off the article because readers immediately have a mental picture of a mysteriously exceptional negotiator they know (plus the cool image already in the article of a cunning man hiding everything but his eyes behind a hand of cards, who has a huge brain bulging from his cowboy hat). With this picture in mind, it becomes more personal/engaging and the reader is eager to learn more and understand what makes that person so good at what they do. Is their brain particularly special?

            The article describes the game the researchers used in the study, quotes a scientist, and then provides a one-paragraph conclusion of the study: “[scientists] found that the strategic deceivers had unique brain activity in regions connected to complex decision-making, goal maintenance and understanding another person’s belief system.” And that’s pretty much all the story offers. At just over six paragraphs in length, the article surely had room to include some more specific details on the study, on scientists’ interpretations and conclusions, on brain activity in those special regions, and on where this kind of skilled deception comes into play in the real world.

Armageddon

This article can be found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/07/MNG71G46A0.DTL&type=science

            In a very short story released today by Melissa Eddy from the Associated Press, scientists around the world say that it is time to collectively work harder at tracking and avoiding near-Earth asteroids. In a story like this, the asteroid numbers are important and a good thing to include towards the beginning: starting in second paragraph, “NASA has tracked nearly 7,000 near-Earth objects that are bigger than several feet across. Of those, 1,157 are considered ‘potentially hazardous asteroids’…risky asteroids are those that come within 4.6 million miles of Earth’s orbit.”

            The article continues to quote scientists from around the globe, but there is very little else that is substantial in this short story. It ends abruptly, without fully explaining what the game plan is for the United Nations in addressing this issue. The huge question that most readers will be asking themselves about this topic is left unanswered: how are we going to respond to a legitimate asteroid threat once we find it? The only statement that directly refers to this question is the second to last paragraph/sentence that reads, “The technology exists that would effectively allow scientists to send a craft into space to rear-end an asteroid, and slightly change its velocity.” But more details about such an operation would inform and interest the reader, and would have probably strengthened this story—a story that is relevant to not just a select group of readers, but to everyone on Earth.

Coral Reefs Destroyed by Oil

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/science/earth/06coral.html?_r=1&ref=science

            The BP oil spill seems to be a gold mine for science news writers. Here’s another story about the impacts the spill has had on local environments; this time, scientists have uncovered damaged coral reefs in the Gulf of Mexico that are likely a result of the oil spill, they say. The writer of the story, John Collins Rudolf, writes a good lead with this crucial information, and then follows it with a second paragraph on the less interesting, but still important details: the second paragraph reads, “The coral sites lie seven miles southwest of the well, at a depth of about 4,500 feet, in an area where large plumes of dispersed oil were discovered.” There's also a nice image included that illustrates the horrible condition of the coral reefs exposed to the oil.

            After that, Rudolf takes 2-3 more paragraphs to explain unimportant details and recapitulations of what’s already been said until he finally quotes a scientist. Perhaps he could have gone into the voice of the scientist sooner. Towards the end of the article, Rudolf delves into a discussion of future study/activity surrounding the coral devastation on account of the spill: “Further study is needed to conclusively link the coral die-off to the spill, scientists said, and the survey team took a number of samples form the site to test for the presence of hydrocarbons and dispersant.” This is nice to know, but it could have been made more concise—however, the inverse pyramid structure is conserved and Rudolf is a good writer, so the article certainly works as is.

3-D Expansion

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/11/03/science/AP-US-SCI-Video-in-3-D.html?_r=1&ref=science

            When someone says 3-D, the first thing people think about is 3-D movies. 3-D is a new technology that has seen a huge increase in popularity recently: nearly every animated movie and some live action movies are now released in theaters in 3-D form, in addition to the less expensive, traditional 2-D display. But this article talks about a new kind of 3-D in the works—hologram technology; or as the Associated Press puts it, “a technology far beyond 3-D movies and more like the “Star Wars” scene where a ghostly Princess Leia image pleads, ‘Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi.’”

            It’s interesting that the AP includes a Star Wars reference in the lead to describe the new technology when the word ‘hologram’ would have done the trick. Though Star Wars is a famous movie, the mention of one scene that people may not remember does not explain a new technology—though it may engage the reader’s interest. The reader doesn’t get a clear view of what this technology is and what it can be used for other than entertainment until the seventh paragraph: “it might allow doctors in multiple places around the world to collaborate on live surgery, he said. If the screen were placed flat on a table, they could get a 360-degree view by walking around, just as if the patient were lying there.” Indeed, the strength of the article is that it focuses less on the technical details of this new 3-D technology that few would understand or care about, and more on the potential uses and implications.  

The Peanut Comet

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/science/space/05comet.html?_r=1&ref=science

            Even if the news story itself is not so great, the New York Times never misses an opportunity to capitalize on the national obsession with space. There’s even a whole section within the greater Science section called ‘Space & Cosmos.’ Their latest space story is a relatively insubstantial one (it has a nice picture though) about NASA spacecraft Deep Impact passing by the peanut-shaped comet Hartley 2.

            Kenneth Chang writes the story and he keeps it brief, knowing there’s not much to be said. The only real news here is that the spacecraft came close to the comet and took some pictures; but Chang underlines how thrilling this is for astronomers, realizing it may not be so exciting for the average American. Then he goes into some nice background about the Deep Impact spacecraft and the comet Hartley 2—but there could have been more information about the actual science: Chang could have expanded on why cometary research is important, and what scientists hope for in the remaining time Deep Impact has before it is rendered useless. Answering these questions may have strengthened the piece by making it more relevant to the world down here, instead of it being primarily familiar to the cold reaches of space and in the lofty heads of arcane astronomers.

Tenacious Oil

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/03spill.html?ref=science

    How long will the fiasco over the BP oil spill last? More than half a year after the oil began to flow from the drilling vessel into the Gulf of Mexico, thousands of workers are still out there, on the water and along the coastlines, cleaning up the mess. The spill has profoundly disrupted tourism and fishing industries in the Gulf, and the oil continues to impact the lives of local residents. This article is about the suspicious brown streaks in the open water near the Mississippi—locals are convinced they’re streaks of oil, but scientists say it’s algae.

    However, that’s not what the entire article is about, and rightly so. The writers use that particular story to quickly launch into a discussion of the state of the oil spill as it is now, in early November: the sixth paragraph begins, “The cleanup of the worst offshore oil spill in US history continues here on the Gulf Coast, as does some of the contentiousness of the panic-plagued summer.” The story then examines the current work being done, the progress, what’s left to do, and overall provides an engaging and concise update on the situation. Then it ventures into one of the main concerns: the possibility of “significant population declines” as a result of the spill. As many science articles do, this one ends with questions (and fears) that still need answers, leaving the reader both informed and absorbed.

Large Hadron Collider Alive and Well

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/science/space/02cern.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=science

    The Large Hadron Collider has received a lot of attention from the science news press in the past couple years, probably because scientists believe it will solve some of the greatest mysteries of the universe, such as the Higgs boson and dark matter. But since it’s been subject to repair and rigorous testing ever since the disastrous malfunction in 2008, and has been out of the press for a while, the time is right for this feature piece by Dennis Overbye in the New York Times, wherein he gives a review of the machine and discusses its recent successes, failures, and goals.

    However, none of it is all that exciting. Sure, the guys at “the Large Hadron Collider finally got five trillion high-energy particles under control, squeezed and tweaked them into tight bunches and started banging them together,” but no data has been processed yet and it appears that no interesting discoveries in the world of physics have yet been made. The piece is mostly filled with statements of excitement from many of the physicists/scientists involved with CERN and the Large Hadron Collider, and indeed, the title is “Trillions of Reasons to be Excited.” But that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad story. Overbye writes exceptionally as always, and the piece is exciting to anybody interested in physics; but it is a shame that Overbye was probably instructed to write a feature of a certain length, when a more concise story may have been more powerful and engaging to general audiences.  

Finding, Breeding, Selling Nemo

This article can be found at http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/11/01/breeding_nemo_maine_lab_flourishes/?page=full

    Here’s a bizarre subject for a feature piece: the breeding of saltwater tropical fish in captivity. Kelli Whitlock Burton writes about one man’s booming new business of breeding and selling saltwater tropical fish, a process that has traditionally been very difficult. His name is Soren Hansen, a graduate student from the University of Maine, and he is the subject of this feature story.

    The piece moves fairly well. This is a difficult subject to engage the reader in because it is so obscure and irrelevant, but Burton does well in keeping up the pace and making it somewhat interesting. Perhaps the best thing Burton does to answer the reader’s inevitable “so-what!-who-cares?” question is to link the tropical fish breeding with things that the general public would know/care about, like the US fish industry: “The ornamental fish industry is a billion-dollar enterprise in the United States, but the sale of saltwater aquarium fish has historically made up only a small part of that trade.” Burton also notes how the hit Disney movie “Finding Nemo” sparked a huge increase in colorful tropical fish sales—similar to what “101 Dalmatians” did for Dalmatian sales. Such details can connect the reader to the story and capture his/her attention (at least for a little bit.)