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.