The Evolution of Science Journalism?

This is part of an OpenSciLogs/Indiegogo project entitled “the History of Science Journalism” to which I contributed. To add your own contribution go to: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10hB4Pa1Alx-m04iON9-QfKOSp3kfCpRENeN-vFC0Ft0/edit

When asked what I want to do in the future, I reply, “science journalism”. The most common responses I get are “what’s that?” and “ooh, haven’t heard of that one before!” One person remarked: “science journalism? Those are two words I’d never have put together!”

Does this mean that science journalism is dead? I should hope not! I think it is simply the case that people aren’t used to hearing the term – after all, it is commonly assumed that science graduates have one of three broad career options: academic research, teaching, and medicine. Yet the public is exposed to science journalism, in the form of documentaries and news headlines. Science is what informs society about stem cell research, newly discovered drugs, new materials.

Clearly, the way in which we receive science news is diversifying: the use of blogs and social media is taking over, with more traditional forms of journalism becoming less popular. Wanting to know whether and how the content of science journalism has evolved, I decided to look through the Archive of the Popular Science magazine and gather some statistics.

I selected a random issue (two issues at the start, when they were short) from every 4^th year between 1872 and 2008 and counted the number of articles which best fit into 12 broad categories (this took longer than expected!) and got some interesting results:

Articles in the “other” category initially consisted largely of history and philosophy of science, but later these were replaced with advertisements, readers’ opinions and economics.

Far be it from an aspiring science writer to attempt to draw conclusions about the evolution of science journalism from just one magazine – that is not how the scientific method works! – but there were several points of note from the Popular Science archive:

·         For the first 40 years or so, each issue comprised around 10 long, research-paper style articles about developments in science. These were broad in topic, but with some preference for the biological sciences and a lot of articles focusing on sociology, anthropology and philosophy.

·         At this point there were relatively few articles on engineering and technology, with the odd paper on electronics and mechanics.

·         1916, right in the middle of WW1, was the first major turning point: the magazine became more newspaper-style, with many more articles which were much briefer; the focus at this point shifted almost entirely to new inventions and machinery, which continued to dominate the magazine. From then on there was hardly any mention of physiology, psychology or philosophy.

·         It was interesting to note some important scientific discoveries which nonetheless were not front-page headlines and could easily have been missed. For example, June 1948: “Experiments prove you can’t destroy energy”.

·         In the 40s and 50s there was a big increase in home and DIY, with entire sections devoted to this.

·         From the 80s onwards there began to appear articles on renewable energy sources and mention in advertisements of products being eco-friendly, suggesting this was around the time we began to become self-aware of our impact on the environment.

To what extent does the coverage of science in the media affect the direction of scientific research? I think this is especially the case with somewhat controversial current topics such as GM and stem cell research. These are big scientific advances, but they raise ethical issues and it is important that scientists take public opinion into account. However, I also think that science journalists should stress where possible that the benefits of these advances often outweigh the moral issues. For example, many people argue that the creation of human embryos in stem cell therapy is akin to creating and then destroying a potential human life, but a sense of perspective is needed here, i.e. many lives will potentially be saved; furthermore, can an embryo really be likened to a human life? I’m currently reading How We Live and Why We Die: The Secret Lives of Cells by Lewis Wolpert, in which developmental processes in humans are discussed. With all the massive changes, including cell division, differentiation and the formation of organs, that the single fertilised egg must undergo before it even resembles a human being, Wolpert argues that it is not justified to allocate the same rights to an embryo that one would to a human.

What would I like to see in the future with regards to science reporting? I’d like the relationship between science news and the public to be more two-way, more interactive. With the increase in social media for reporting scientific news and discoveries, I can envisage a situation where more people become engaged in the news they receive - give feedback, ask questions, push for more information. Now that would make a science journalist’s job very interesting, in my opinion.

The data came from http://www.popsci.com/content/wordfrequency#internet.
The project "the History of Science Journalism" belongs to Robin Wylie, PhD student. Please feel free to contribute to the document.

“Give me more chocolate!” (An Easter special)

Ever since the dawn of chocolate in Mesoamerica almost 4000 years ago, it has been no secret that the stuff makes you feel good. Chocolate was first drunk as a beverage by the Olmec people of Mexico around 1900BC¹, possibly for medicinal purposes. It remained native to South America until the 15^th century, when it eventually spread to Europe. By this time people valued chocolate so much that cacao beans were used as currency!

Nowadays, needless to say, chocolate is a big hit worldwide: the average British person consumes 10.2kg each year², and the figure is higher in Switzerland, Belgium, Germany and Ireland. Today being Easter Sunday, no doubt many of us will be shamelessly tucking into chocolate eggs. What is it about this delicious treat that makes us tick?

To quote the beloved fictional chocolatier Willy Wonka: “Chocolate contains a property that triggers the release of endorphins. Gives one the feeling of being in love.” The active ingredient to which Wonka is referring, known as theobromine³, does indeed cause the brain to secrete these feel-good hormones, and is regarded as the main reason why eating chocolate makes us feel great. Chocolate also stimulates the production of serotonin⁴, a chemical which boosts happiness.

A further ingredient in chocolate, anandamide, has been shown to work by activating the same brain region as the active ingredient in cannabis⁵. But don’t panic – that doesn’t mean eating chocolate will make you high! The levels of anandamide in chocolate are considered too low to have a noticeable effect (unless you were to eat several pounds of chocolate – not advisable!)

Our brain’s reward pathway system can also be held accountable. What is the reward pathway system, I hear you ask? Certain things necessary for our survival trigger a rewarding feeling in our brain, a system which has evolved to help us to survive and reproduce by motivating us to repeat the action as often as possible. Sex is one example: essential for us to reproduce and pass down our genes, sex stimulates a pleasurable feeling which makes us want more. Eating has the same effect, and energy-rich foods such as chocolate trigger the pathway more than others⁶ (I for one don’t find that brussel sprouts have this euphoric effect).  

Apart from improving our mood, chocolate has been shown to have numerous health benefits (in moderation, of course). For example, chocolate can reduce the risk of heart disease by lowering cholesterol levels in the blood³, and also replenishes minerals such as magnesium⁴, restoring the body’s optimal function during menstruation, for example. These health benefits are greater in chocolate with a high percentage of cocoa. Furthermore, it has been shown that the link between chocolate and acne is merely a myth³ (phew!).

Before concluding, I feel obliged to add that the above does not mean we should all stuff our faces with as much chocolate as we wish all the time – the sugar and fat content can of course lead to problems such as diabetes and obesity – however, perhaps it will make you feel less guilty about indulging yourself at this festive time of year. On that note, I wish you readers a very happy Easter, and please, comment away!

1.       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chocolate

2.       http://www.exportsolutions.com/ExportTipsDetails.aspx?id=74&title=Fun

3.       http://www.purdys.com/Facts-About-Chocolate.aspx

4.       http://www.medicalwellnessassociation.com/articles/chocolate_benefits.htm

5.       http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/indepth.food/sweets/chocolate.cravings/

6.       The Biochemist, Vol.35 No 6, Gluttony (p4-9)

Image credit:

http://wodumedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/The-spun-sugar-boat-makes-it-way-down-the-chocolate-river-in-Warner-Bros.-Pictures-fantasy-adventure-Charlie-and-the-Chocolate-Factory-starring-Johnny-Depp.-Photo-courtesy-of-Warner-Bros.-Pictures-17-960x518.jpg

http://zerowoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/chocolate15.png

What’s so special about water?

Of all the many mysteries of the living world, one particular puzzle stands out to me. With the enormous range of organic compounds with complex structures and functions that are found in living organisms, how can it be that the most important, and most unusual, compound in life consists of two hydrogen atoms attached to an oxygen atom?

Water is a functionally diverse molecule which, as we all know, makes up about 70% of our bodies. Certain bizarre properties are unique to water and enable it to act as the molecule on which all life as we know it is based. Why should this be?

First, we should look at the chemical and physical properties of water molecules. The distribution of charge in the molecule means that the oxygen atom is ever so slightly negative (δ-) and the hydrogen atoms are slightly positive (δ+). Because opposites attract, two adjacent molecules are attracted to each other by these opposing charges. This attraction, known as the hydrogen bond, is enormously important and accounts for most of water’s counter-intuitive properties.

Armed with this, we can now look at what it is that makes water so special. Hydrogen bonding explains why, for example, water is liquid at room temperature, while most very small molecules are gases. The state a substance occupies at room temperature is all to do with how well its particles are held together: the more they are attracted to each other, the more energy will be needed to separate those particles, and hence the higher the melting and boiling points. If water were a gas at room temperature, or at 37^oC, the temperature of our bodies, life would not be able to use it and we would not exist.

The majority of substances are denser in the solid state than as a liquid, but if you put an ice cube in a glass of water, it will float, in the same way that icebergs float on oceans. This tells us that somehow, water molecules are closer together in liquid water than in solid ice! Our old friends the hydrogen bonds are once again to thank for this property: ice occupies a regular crystal structure with hydrogen bonds holding water molecules at a fixed distance apart, a distance which is greater than that between molecules in liquid water. 

What is the significance of this property? To cite one example, notice that at temperatures below 0^oC, ponds freeze from the top down, rather than from the bottom up, owing to the fact that ice floats. However, the ice on top insulates the water below, which remains liquid. If ponds froze from the bottom up, all the aquatic animals and plants would die because the entire body of water would freeze up!

The fact that water molecules stick so well to each other (the scientific term is cohesion) allows a remarkable phenomenon to take place in plant stems: water can be transported relatively long distances up the stems of plants against the force of gravity – all because of the cohesion between molecules. When water evaporates out of the leaves, water at the top of the stem is pulled upwards, creating tension on the water in the stem. This is appropriately known as the “cohesion-transpiration theory”, and plants could not live without it because they could not get water to their leaves for photosynthesis, among other things.

I will conclude with two further properties of water that are important at the cellular level. Water is special in that it is an excellent solvent of many substances: salt, for example, will dissolve if you add it to a glass of water. In cells, this means that glucose, ions and other things can easily be transported round the body by water in the blood. In addition, water is so small that it has no problem in passing through the membranes of our body cells, which act like filters to keep out unwanted substances.

I hope this was interesting and valuable, and please feel free to comment with any feedback. My next post, in a fortnight’s time, is likely to be related to Easter: I’m thinking of writing about the biochemical effects of chocolate on the brain and body, so stay tuned!

References:

Life, the Science of Biology (Seventh Edition) – W. Purves, D. Sadava, G. Orians, H. Heller

New Scientist, issue 2746 p33-35: The strangest liquid: why water is so weird                           

Images: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ice_iv.html

http://www.studyblue.com/notes/note/n/chapter-2-water-and-carbon-the-chemical-basis-of-life/deck/104681