Science Writing workshop |
||
January 25 and February 1, 2010 Meeting Place: 305 Bass, 266 Whitney Avenue Workshop objectives: This workshop will introduce science graduate students to writing about science for a broad, non-scientist audience. Course schedule: First meeting: Monday January 25, 2010, 10 am to noon. This session will begin with a discussion about science writing, considering techniques required for good science writing. We will use the assigned reading below as the basis for the discussion.The books are available on reserve. You might want to consider purchasing both of them; they are excellent introductions to science writing. I will describe in some detail how I produced one of my own articles, starting with the paper on which it was based. Finally, we will discuss the course assignment (details below). We will discuss the papers about which you will be writing, and begin to plan out your pieces. So please prepare for the discussion by reading the papers. TECHNIQUE: 17. Deadline Writing, by Gareth Cook. (p.111) 19. Gee Whiz Science Writing, by Robert Kunzig (p.126) 22. The Science Essay, Robert Kanigel (p.145) Questions to consider: These three writers describe three very different forms of science writing: short newspaper articles, long magazine features, and essays. What techniques are common to all three forms? What are the most important differences? Do you think that these differences are a matter of convention or reflect the essential rules of each genre? How do these techniques impair or strengthen articles about science? Do any of these techniques apply to other kinds of science communications, such as television or blogs? EXAMPLES OF SCIENCE WRITING Annie Murphy Paul, “The First Ache” Martin Enserink, “Tough Lessons From Golden Rice” John Seabrook, “Hello, HAL.” Questions to consider: These stories each tackle big topics—pain, genetically modified foods, and artificial intelligence. How did each writer narrow down the subject to a focused story? Dissect the story by writing down the outline, section by section. How does one section follow the next? What is the structure of each story? How do the writers manage controversy? How do they bring people to life? How do they explain complex science? FROM PAPER TO ARTICLE: The paper: Lewis and Cratsely: “Flash signal evolution, mate choice, and predation in fireflies.” Annual Review of Entomology. 2008;53:293-321. The article: "Blink Twice If You Like Me." By Carl Zimmer. The New York Times, June 29, 2009. Questions to consider: I will give a brief account of writing a news article based on recent research papers. Compare the papers and the article. Does the article fairly reflect the research? Does it indulge in hype, or does it miss the true excitement in the research? Writing Assignment: Please read all these papers. Write a 500-word piece on topic 1 or 2. 1. Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate, Anomaly, Mann et al. 2. Two papers: “Transcriptome Complexity in a Genome-Reduced Bacterium,” Guell et al. and “Impact of Genome Reduction on Bacterial Metabolism and Its Regulation,” Yus et al You are free to choose the style in which you write your assignment. It may be an opinion piece, a piece of straight news reporting as you'd see in a newspaper, or a more creative piece you might find in a magazine. However you approach it, you must write your piece so that a non-scientist would be able to understand it (and perhaps even enjoy it). Depending on your own scientific training, you may be familiar with one of these topics. I would urge you to choose the paper about which you are least familiar. Science writing requires you to get quickly up to speed on complicated subjects. Also be warned: writing about a topic you know very well raises the risk you will slide into incomprehensible jargon. (See here for an index of words I’ve banned from previous classes: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/11/30/the-index-of-banned-words-the-continually-updated-edition/ ) To research your piece, read the paper, look for any commentaries in the journals, and find background reading for context. Try to find someone at Yale or elsewhere who is an expert in this area who can take you through the research. Assignments are due by Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 5 pm. Please email them to me at carl@carlzimmer.com Please note that I will only be able to evaluate pieces by the first 20 students who registered for the workshop. However, all registrants are welcome to attend both sessions, write the assignment, and participate in the discussions about the assignment in the second session. In order to participate in the second session, waiting list students will need to read the writing assignments I distribute for discussion, and write comments. On Friday, January 29, I will send all workshop students 2 pieces. All students will be expected to read them by the second workshop meeting. Second Meeting: Monday, February 1, 2010, 10 am to noon. We will spend this session discussing the writing assignment. Most likely, you will have encountered unexpected challenges, which you are encouraged to describe. We will also discuss the sample pieces I will have distributed the previous Friday. You will be expected to offer constructive criticism about how the stories could be improved. We should have additional time for any topics that students wish to discuss further. All participants in the second session (including waiting list students) are required to write a 100-word critique of each article we will be discussing. The critique should describe a strong point of the article, and suggest a way to improve it. This assignment is intended to sharpen our discussion. Please bring two printed copies of your critiques: one for me and one for the author. Print each critique on a separate piece of paper. I will return evaluated writing assignments at the second meeting. Updates: I will email all participants any updates and add them to this page. |