Best Shortform Science Writing: January-March 2017

(A Highly Subjective Round-up of Standout Science News)

[Above:  Header from an 1884 science magazine called Knowledge, led by British astronomer Richard Anthony Proctor. Its tagline reads: “A magazine of science: plainly worded – exactly described.”  Image via Wikimedia Commons & public domain.]

Late January 2017 saw a shift in science journalism so subtle that you probably wouldn’t notice it unless you make your living writing press releases. I happened to be interning in the press office of a prominent family of scientific journals that publishes basic research almost exclusively, so I felt it. And since our press office tracks the coverage of all studies from its journals, I saw data, too.

What we noticed is coverage of our papers in the first half of January 2017 looked a lot like the first half of January 2016. But on January 20, 2017, coverage of our journals’ papers saw a drop. Our February 2017 coverage stats were below our February 2016 numbers, both in terms of the percentage of studies covered and in the number of outlets that covered the popular studies. The numbers improved since then.

We’re biased, but we think it’s unlikely that our press releases suddenly got worse. The journal family is focused basic biology and chemistry (y’know–octopus RNA, flu-killing peptides in frog mucus, stuff like that), and it seems that science journalists, in aggregate, weren’t writing as many stories about basic research as they did in February-early March last year.

That’s neither a good thing nor a bad thing, and it may be the standard science journalism community response to a new administration, regardless of party. But in my mind, it raises the question: How do we decide what counts as “science writing”? Where do we draw the distinction between “health policy” stories and “science of health” stories? Is there a distinction to be drawn at all?

Continue reading “Best Shortform Science Writing: January-March 2017” »

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponDigg thisEmail this to someone

10 Women of Color in Science History (Part 1): Medicine

It’s Women’s History Month, and in the Science Twitterverse, that means it’s a time for collages, lists, and black-and-white photos of famous women from science history.

Universities, non-profits, and journalists all love to honor the month by highlighting women’s contribution’s to science. This year it feels especially poignant due to the recent passing of Vera Rubin and Mildred Dresselhaus, both of whom were on shortlists for “Most Likely to Break the 54-Year Streak of Women Not Winning the Nobel Prize for Physics.” However, most #WomeninSTEM tributes largely leave out a key group of people: the women of color who have contributed to STEM. 

Some tributes–like the two below–do a decent job of including key women from underrepresented minorities in STEM history.

 

 

Others not so much…

Continue reading “10 Women of Color in Science History (Part 1): Medicine” »

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponDigg thisEmail this to someone

The (Mostly) Untold Story of the Oxygen Revolution

[Cyanobacteria–green, brown, and orange streaks–grow in hot spring at Yellowstone National Park. Photo by Harvey Barrison via Flickr & Creative Commons 2.0] 

The troublemakers were hardly new to the neighborhood. For 300 million years, they had lived in the water column, floating in the sunlight near the surface, sending tiny plumes of toxic gas into the air. That was how they ate: sunlight in, poison out. But it was nothing the ecosystem couldn’t handle. The atmosphere was vast, and the troublemakers were microscopic. The poison diffused. Life went on.  

Until something changed. For some reason, there were more of the green troublemakers. Quadrillions more. So many more that their poison became the air itself. An entire world’s atmosphere transformed. Those that could tolerate the miasma grew and spread. Others survived in pockets of the planet where the new air couldn’t reach them. Uncountable numbers died.

The sunlight-eating oxygen-makers inherited the Earth.

In other words, 2.3 billion years ago, photosynthesis caused a mass extinction.

Continue reading “The (Mostly) Untold Story of the Oxygen Revolution” »

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponDigg thisEmail this to someone

Best Shortform Science Writing October-December 2016

Best Shortform Science Writing October-December 2016

(A Highly Subjective Round-up of Standout Science News)

[Above: A fish-eyed view of a newsstand in Paris. Photo by Mark Mitchell via Flickr & Creative Commons 2.0 License] 

Science writing at its best doesn’t just impart facts; it has the potential to change the way we think about issues and phenomena. And yet, the vast majority of pieces on science writing–especially the short news stories designed to be consumed on a daily basis–simply focus on telling stories to people who are already interested in science.

The shortforms–the daily news briefs, front-of-book blurbs, and succinct blog posts– are the training grounds for emerging science writing writers, but they’re also underused as a place for experimenting with new ways to convey science, environment, and health stories to the public.

So my writing New Year’s Resolution is to experiment more, both in my blogging and in the sorts of stories I nominate for the 2017 @SciShortform round-ups. I hope you’ll join me by carrying out some experiments of your own and sharing them with the shortform editors.

You can nominate stories via this Google form or simply by tagging us at @SciShortform on Twitter. (Be sure to include a link to the piece you’re nominating in your tweet!)

Continue reading “Best Shortform Science Writing October-December 2016” »

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponDigg thisEmail this to someone

NIH scientists identify a genetic disorder that may affect 1 in 20

[Mast cells from a sinus stained in blue. Image via Wikimedia Commons & CC 2.0] 

On July 10, 2010, a DC restauranteur came down with what seemed to be food poisoning. He had no energy and no appetite. Rashes flared up. He could barely get out of bed. First hours and then days dragged by without any relief from the symptoms.

The restauranteur’s family sought out doctor after doctor, until finally they were referred to a lab at the NIH (National Institutes of Health) that studies how allergies pass down through families. 

His symptoms fit a diagnosis of Mast Cell Activation Syndrome, (MCAS)  a disorder where a type of immune cells called mast cells release chemicals that send other immune cells into a destructive frenzy. Ideally, mast cells detect infection and spur other immune cells into action. However, some people’s mast cells have a hair trigger. When mast cells release their chemical contents too often, immune cells end up attacking healthy tissue, causing allergies, stomach issues, and heart palpitations. 

[Above: An NIH-produced video about MCAS and Milner’s research into mast cell activation genetics.] 

Unfortunately, most treatments for MCAS aim at the symptoms, not the root cause.  But the NIH team delved deeper into the genetics and found a pattern:  many MCAS-related symptoms run in families.

And oddly enough, hyperflexible joints, dysautonomia, and baby teeth that fail to fall out also ran in many of those families. Many of these symptoms skipped generations, only showing up occasionally in individuals. But genetic sequencing revealed the correlation wasn’t coincidence.

In October, NIH scientist Joshua Milner and his team described the  genetic disorder in a paper in Nature Genetics. According to the team’s paper, 4-6% of the U.S. population has the genes that predispose them to this syndrome–which has been tentatively named alpha-tryptasemia or “alpha-T”.

The symptoms can be cryptic and unrelenting: Dizziness, chronic pain, irritable bowels, fainting. But for many patients with these conditions, there’s no explanation and no treatment. “These [symptoms] are really all triggers to get an eyeroll from a doctor,” said Milner. But for a sizeable portion of population, these seemingly unrelated problems might be part of the previously undiscovered genetic disorder.

Continue reading “NIH scientists identify a genetic disorder that may affect 1 in 20” »

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponDigg thisEmail this to someone

Cachexia: How Cancer Sabotages Patients’ Metabolism

[A cancer patient rests in a hospital bed. Photo by Christine Gleason via Creative Commons 2.0 & Flickr

Tumors are master manipulators. They have to be in order to escape human immune systems. Scientists have found evidence that tumors hide by wearing biochemical disguises and some tumors can even recruit turncoat immune cells to their cause.

And now scientists have found evidence that some tumors alter the whole body’s metabolism by “reprogramming” the liver,  according to a study in the journal Cell Metabolism. [Full disclosure: I have an accepted an internship position at Cell Press’s media relations office, but I don’t start until January. I conducted the interviews this post is based on prior to accepting the internship.] The consequences of that reprogramming are often deadly. 

It’s no secret that many cancer patients waste away. They lose weight, including lean muscle mass.  Many lose their appetites, too. Food doesn’t seem to nourish them anymore. They grow weaker.  Breathing gets harder.  And, too often, they die.

This wasting syndrome is called cachexia.  

“The wasting can get so severe in so many patients that it’s estimated to account for 30% of all deaths due to cancer,” explains study co-author Thomas Flint of University of Cambridge. “Lots of people are saying [the cause of death] is the metastasis; it’s this and that, but about 30% of the deaths don’t seem to be directly explained by the tumor.”  Continue reading “Cachexia: How Cancer Sabotages Patients’ Metabolism” »

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponDigg thisEmail this to someone

7 Things To Know About Mitochondria: 2016 edition

Mitochondria: To most people, they’re little more than a ghostly memory fragment from middle school biology. However, these tiny “powerhouse(s) of the cell” are much more than they seem.

They’re actually the shape-shifting descendants of ancient bacteria that were eaten by a larger archaebacterium billions of years ago. . (If you want to know more about that theory, check out my recent Lateral magazine piece on the scientist who developed that theory.)  Mitochondria have complex relationships with other organelles, swim around in our neurons, and make up 1/3rd of the mass of heart cells.  In the past year, scientists have learned how to add and remove them with cellular surgeries and how to manipulate them directly.

Mitochondria live in every cell in your body and are essential for human life. As University of California post doc Samantha Lewis pointed out to me: “There’s mitochondrial involvement in almost every disease.” 

Yet, we rarely hear of or think about our cells’ powerhouses.

Here are seven facts you probably haven’t heard about mitochondria:

1:  Mitochondria are interconnected shape-shifters.

18962944788_bb79ca413b_k

[A bone cancer cell with stringy mitochondria highlighted in yellow. Photo by NICHD via Flickr & CC 2.0 License.] 

We say “Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell” as if mitochondria is a singular word, but actually it’s plural. (The singular of mitochondria is mitochondrion.)  However, in most cells mitochondria act as a collective, passing electrons and genetic information from mitochondrion to mitochondrion.

“They’re [descended from] bacteria that divide in a binary fashion,” explained UC Davis cell biologist and mitochondria specialist Jodi Nunnari. “During the course of evolution [the mitochondrial] genome has been greatly reduced. As a consequence of that and the fact that they were reproducing in a new environment, a few of those do mitochondrial fusion.” Mitochondria’s habit of merging sets them apart from all known bacteria. “Bacteria divide, but they don’t fuse,” Nunnari added.

In fact, mitochondria are so tightly connected that many scientists think of them as a membrane network rather than a series of jelly-bean shaped organelles.

Continue reading “7 Things To Know About Mitochondria: 2016 edition” »

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponDigg thisEmail this to someone

The Case of the Fish in the Flood

[A high flow event at Glen Canyon Dam in November 2013.  Photo by the Bureau of Reclamation via Flickr & CC 2.0 License.] 

Proposed Headine:

How an Invasive Species (Almost) Stopped a Flood

Proposed Dek:

“High flow events” or controlled floods are a key tool for managing the Colorado River. But what happens when an invasive fish gets in the way?

The Pitch:

Hi! While recently visiting Utah, I came across an interesting story about the Colorado River. Let me know if you’d be interested:

Is the threat of spreading an invasive species enough to justify canceling projects that help maintain the ecosystem? That’s the question facing resource managers at the Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River.

Last year, they had to cancel a controlled flood or “high flow event” because there were a large number of green sunfish in backwater sloughs just downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. They were concerned that opening the dam’s floodgates might wash the green sunfish downriver into the territory of an endangered fish species called humpback chub. However, controlled floods are crucial for releasing sediment that builds up near the dam and rebuilding shorelines and sandbars downstream in the Grand Canyon area. “When the Glen Canyon Dam was built, it blocked 90% of the sediment that was coming through the Colorado River,” explains Rob Billerbeck of the National Parks Service. “So it changed what used to be a red river to a clear river.”

Without the floods that carry sediment downstream, shorelines erode. But more water flow also means more risk of invasive fish spreading. This year, the green sunfish may cause the cancellation of a second flood. So far, Parks Services officials have dealt with the situation by killing and removing the invasive fish from the river system. The NPS and the Bureau of Reclamation are optimistic that they’ve “treated” all of the green sunfish and will be able to move forward with a controlled flood, but the issue of balancing the need to prevent invasive species’ spread with the need to rebuild sandbars and shorelines will likely be a recurring one. This year’s controlled flood will go forward on November 7th, but the green sunfish problem seems likely to come up again.

Although it’s primarily an environmental and resource management story, I think the philosophical hook of “dammed if they do, dammed if they don’t” (sorry; couldn’t resist the pun) that raises an interesting philosophical question: What happens when invasive species begin to take wildlife management decisions out of human hands?

Continue reading “The Case of the Fish in the Flood” »

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponDigg thisEmail this to someone

12 Lessons from Science Writers 2016 in San Antonio

[Inside the Alamo. Photo by Jerald Jackson via Flickr & CC 2.0, My own Alamo photos did not come out this pretty.] 

This past weekend, I spent three and a half days at the National Association of Science Writers meeting in San Antonio, Texas.

If you’ve never been to a Science Writers conference, here’s what you need to know:  It’s an eclectic event. On Friday and Saturday, science writers meet to discuss their craft and the state of their field. On Sunday and Monday, scientists present to the journalists, bloggers, and university writers, to give them all a chance to learn a bit about trending topics in science.

Here are a few of the key takehome messages I picked up at Science Writers 2016. 

1. The PIO vs. Journalist division has been wildly over-dramaticized.

 

Writers who work for universities–aka Public Information Officers or PIOs–are a huge chunk of NASW’s member population. They attend the same conference panels, follow the same Twitter accounts, and stand in the same lines for coffee as the journalists and bloggers amongst NASW’s ranks.

However, in some respects, PIOs’ work is very different from journalists: Specifcially, a PIO’s job is to make their university look freakin’ awesome; a journalist’s job is to provide needed information–and often critiques of institutions–to the public.  Both camps of science writers want to provide their readers with accurate and interesting information, but the reasons behind that objective strongly contrast.

At last year’s NASW meeting, a proposed amendment that would allow PIOs to serve as officers on NASW’s board  brought the tensions between the two professional groups to the fore. Some PIOs felt undervalued; many journalists and some PIOs  argued that allowing PIOs to serve as officers would create Conflicts-of-Interest for NASW. (Clarification: PIOs are already allowed to serve as board members, just not officers.) The debate has been extensively covered by Undark magazine. 

Based on some heated (and impolitic) listserv discussions, many expected the tensions to erupt once again at the meeting. However, the San Antonio conference was suprisingly calm,  with the vast majority of amendment commentators saying that “we should all (continue) to be friends”.

Many senior writers also acknowledged the existence of freelancers who do a combination of journalistic and PIO work, as well as bloggers (like yours truly) that don’t fit either category. The results of the vote on the amendment won’t be announced for several days, but overall, the debate seems to have simmered down.

2. If you want to be a science writer, don’t be afraid to pitch.

The most important tweet of the conference:

Back in high school, I once saw an utterly mediocre Will Smith movie, where he plays a guy who advises other men on how to get women’s attention.  One scene stuck in my head where Will Smith turns to camera and says, “Trust me. No woman wakes up and thinks, ‘Gee, I hope I don’t get swept off my feet today.'”

The casual sexism of off-feet-sweeping, aside, the principle holds true. Most people aren’t actively avoiding making new friends. And most editors are not avoiding awesome new writers. In fact, most of them are actually want to discover new talent.

Continue reading “12 Lessons from Science Writers 2016 in San Antonio” »

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponDigg thisEmail this to someone

How 600 Citizens Helped to Document an Underwater Epidemic

[A Sunflower Sea Star with several arms missing. Photo by Jerry Kirkhart via Flickr & CC 2.0 License.] 

In 2013,  something strange started happening to the starfish, or sea stars, that live along North America’s Pacific Coast. Casual observers began reporting starfish that were “dissolving” or “melting”.

What you first see is they start getting spots on them,” explains marine veterinarian Joseph “Joe” Gaydos of University of California Davis. “They [the sea stars]  start shrinking, and then legs start falling off…Legs will fall off and then crawl around, so it really is like something out of a horror show.”

In 2014,  researchers were able to identify a viral culprit as the immediate cause of the disintegrating sea stars, but we still know very little about how it spreads or which starfish species are most affected by it.

The dying sea stars that were easiest to spot were the ones that live close to shore.  But no one knew what the mysterious Sea Star Wasting Disease (SSWD) was doing to the sea stars deep underwater and in the open ocean. 

“When the sea star wasting disease hit in the Salish Sea in 2013, my first thought was, ‘Gosh, we have 29 species of sea stars. Who’s going to get hurt?’”  Gaydos told me over the phone. 

Luckily, the Salish Sea, an area which includes Puget Sound in Washington State and the Gulf Islands in British Columbia, Canada,  is home to an organization called REEF. Since 2006, REEF has been training amateur divers to count the organisms they see, and over 8,000 of those dives have included sea star counts. 

Gaydos and his colleagues, led by Diego Montecino-Latorre, analyzed the data from REEF’s dives. They also supplemented the REEF data by systematically criss-crossing the Salish Sea’s basins, counting the starfish they saw.

And the data tell a story of devastation. At least, for some of the sea stars.  Continue reading “How 600 Citizens Helped to Document an Underwater Epidemic” »

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponDigg thisEmail this to someone