Heuristic

In a world of growing distrust of statistics, empiricism, and academic authority, Anne McGovern never stops learning. In her writing career, including book reviews and science stories, she has understood the globalized culture of science and how to put difficult ideas in ways everyone can understand. The entirety of her work can be found on her website. In this interview, we’ll discuss her voice she has honed since childhood.

Hussain: Let’s get down to brass tacks, Anne. What made you interested in science writing?

AM: I’ve always liked science and writing. In fact, at my parent’s house there’s one of those self-made books that apparently I wrote in second grade about a girl doing a science experiment. It was a little difficult to find my way into the field, however, as I was often told that I had to choose one direction to follow, science or writing. But I went for it anyway, and here I am. I like science writing because every story allows me to learn about something new.

Hussain: Anne, much of your work involves putting technical, nuanced material into language that most people can understand. What are some challenges you face as you do this and how do you overcome them?

AM: One strategy that I use to wrap my head around some new and complicated research is to tackle the jargon slowly and methodically. I think it’s easy to read the title and/or abstract of a research paper and panic when a sea of unfamiliar words fills the page. But for the most part, I find that words are just words, and if you stop to look up each one, take time to wrap your head around the meaning, you’ll be able to piece together a general idea of the research. The next step is to go talk to the researcher, or another person in the field, to get a more in-depth understanding.

Hussain: This summer you’ve been writing for the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology in Japan. How did you adjust to writing in a foreign culture?

AM: What’s interesting about the science world is that it’s a culture and a language of its own. Sure, I’m living in Japan and writing about science in an international university–the scientists here are from all over the world. But in the end a scientist is a scientist–they wear gloves and goggles and follow the scientific method. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I didn’t feel like I had to adjust much here because I am familiar with the culture of science, which is transnational.

Hussain: In your work at OIST alone, you’ve written on biodiversity, quantum physics, and general news about scientists. The rest of your work spans book reviews, life science, astronomy, and your personal habits. Which topic has been your favorite to write about and why?

AM: I honestly don’t think I have a favorite–every time a new paper appears, no matter the topic, it’s exciting to see what’s inside. However, I do tend to like those topics that deal with medical discoveries. Writing about advances in science that may translate to helping those with serious diseases feels very rewarding.

Hussain: What are your career goals for the future, Anne?

AM: I just hope to keep writing about science and communicating scientific discoveries to the public. Science is one of the fields that really needs good communicators, otherwise it will remain as some mysterious activity happening behind closed doors. Especially now, when mistrust of science is growing, it’s a science communicator’s job to help address the issue.

Hussain: Name one book everyone should read. (And, to make this challenging, it has to be a book that you haven’t reviewed on your blog!)

AM: The book I always recommend to friends when they ask is The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver. This is a story of a missionary family sent to Africa, and it’s told in turn by the mother and three daughters. I was amazed at how the author was able to write in so many different voices, while telling the same story. And the story is deep and heartbreaking.

At the intersection of science, dance, and writing, Nicoletta Lanese pushes her limits in whatever she can do. With awards for research and writing under her belt, she choreographs every movement and thought on her blog. In this interview, we’ll find out Nicoletta’s story and understand this value she searches for in life.

Hussain: First things first….how did you get into science writing?

NL: I’ve been writing since I learned to hold a pencil, but I got into science writing a little later on. As a neuroscience major at the University of Florida, I wrote about science constantly in the context of class. In fall of my junior year, my Lab in Cognitive Neuroscience professor was handing back an assignment. Placing mine on my desk, Dr. Keil casually remarked, “Nice work- you’d make a great science writer.” Not knowing what he meant, I did my research. What I found was a line of work that elegantly combined my love of writing, science, and activism. In a rare moment of clarity, I decided I would pursue science writing as a career. So far, it’s working out.

Hussain: Nicoletta, I might call you a writer, researcher, dancer, and many other things. What motivates you through these seemingly different interests? (By this, I mean like, what ties them together? What are you really looking for in what you do, Nicoletta? Feel free to take this answer in whatever direction you want to.)

NL: To quote Dirk Gently, I believe in the “fundamental interconnectedness of all things.” No event, action, or speck of matter exists in isolation; therefore, each event, action, and speck of matter makes some mark on the greater universe. Applying this notion on a smaller scale, I believe each of my interests informs and enriches the next. At a practical level, I find that my varied experience allows me to operate more creatively – to “think outside the box.” Methodologies I’ve learned in scientific research apply easily to artistic pursuits and vice versa. Engaging in various fields gives me a unique edge in each.

Beyond methodology, I find that the content of each field easily relates. In the end, everything relates back to the grander human experience. Via this all-encompassing throughline, I straddle the seemingly disparate worlds of the arts, humanities, and sciences. I am simply interested in how things work – in how people move through and perceive reality. As an artist-writer-researcher-human, I learn every day. Looking forward, I want to remain a perpetual student and share all I learn with others.

Hussain: You’ve written on science and dance, but also personal topics like your health and daily habits. How has sharing these personal experiences with the world changed or affected your life?

NL: I find catharsis through my writing practice, and many of my more personal essays are borne of a selfish need for release. However, I’m moved to share these writings for a number of reasons. First and foremost, I share them as a show of solidarity. There are many experiences, ideas, and struggles that individuals share but don’t generally discuss. I offer my essays as an opportunity to bring those topics into public forum. The writings provide a platform for others to share their own stories. On the flipside, readers can also gain awareness of experiences they haven’t personally undergone. As their author, I’m inspired by the responses these posts generate, the conversations they spark. While I gain new perspective on the topic at hand, readers inevitably learn something about me as well. Sometimes those readers are my friends and family, and my personal relationships morph to accommodate the new information.

Hussain: Much of your writing is reflective and contemplative in nature. What inspires you to bring forward these meditative thoughts?

NL: I don’t know that I have a good answer for this one. I’ve always been a “thinker,” whiling away the hours chasing thoughts around my head. These thoughts cumulative like storm clouds over time. I let them rain down onto paper occasionally to clear my head.

Hussain: Well, I think that’s a good answer.

Hussain: What’s your biggest challenge you currently face as a science writer? How do you approach it?

NL: My main goal as a science writer is to make science accessible and relevant to the average person. Those unversed in science should be able to read one of my articles, understand its contents, and find reason to care about its implications in “real life.” This is no easy task. Namely, it requires careful consideration of how to deliver my message. Poor choice of sharing platform, visual aid, or vocabulary can spell disaster for an otherwise well-written piece.

As a science writer, I try to put myself in the place of my readers. I consider where and when they encounter information. I anticipate the confusion they might face and the questions they might ask. I review my work from the imagined viewpoint of a non-expert newcomer to the topic. That said, I aim to strike a balance; I refuse to “dumb down” any concept for my audience. Instead, I translate it into a vernacular they’re familiar with.

Hussain: Name one book everyone should read.

NL: This is a really difficult question (and I think you knew it would be). At the risk of overlooking twenty of my favorite books, I’ll go with my gut response and name Orwell’s 1984.

Paving a path for yourself is never straightforward. Kayla Wiles, relations intern at ELIXIR, has paved this path in her mission as a science writer. As she balances values from scientists, physicians, and other professionals for the general public, she achieves these goals in communicating life science information. In this interview with her, we’ll share how she does it.

Hussain: Beginning with the basics…why science writing?

KW: I used to think that I had made up the idea of science writing – I didn’t know anyone else at the time who had merged a mutual love of both science and communication into a single career. Going to the AAAS Annual Meeting in Boston this year really showed me that science writing isn’t just a career; it’s a global necessity. And because it’s a necessity to communicate research across different cultures for the sake of mankind’s survival and curiosity, science writing is most definitely not just my idea. I like that I’m on a mission.

Hussain: As an undergraduate, you made your own degree: Health Journalism. You chose which courses to take and figured out which opportunities were right for you. What made you decide to take such an independent approach to your college career?

KW: Towards the end of my freshman year at Furman University, I felt like I needed to start thinking about a major. My adviser pulled out the university’s course catalog and asked me to make a list of courses from each major that I would be interested in taking. The problem was that my lists were about the same length for five different majors. Noting this, my adviser asked if I had heard about Furman’s Individualized Curriculum Program – a way to merge courses from different departments into a single major, provided that the degree still met certain criteria.

Her solution was a relief for me. I felt that if I had chosen just one or two majors, I would have missed out on other courses that would develop me as a writer. I graduated knowing how the body works on a basic level (biology), how diseases can be prevented and the public health measures that affect them (health sciences), the role of the media and how to write creatively (communication studies and English), and why health care systems matter (economics).

Hussain: When you go through story ideas, how do you generally decide what makes a good story?

KW: On a superficial level, if I would read it on a phone. I don’t like reading things on phones, so if a story is engaging enough to overcome my discomfort with small touch screens and doesn’t take up more than two minutes of my time, then I think it’s a winner. The angle matters too – sometimes the research itself isn’t new, but the context is fresh or trendy. I wrote a story once that put iron overload (not new) in the context of the flu season (because keeping zinc and vitamin C levels balanced with iron levels promotes a healthier immune system). People are interested in stories that relate to them, so the good story will be creative in making that case.

Hussain: Your background in health, biology, and journalism give you breadth of interaction that other writers might not have. How does your work communicating between medical professionals and journalists shape the way you write?

KW: I didn’t really think about this until I came to the U.K. and was tasked with writing to scientists more frequently than to the public. Scientists might want to know more details about how a new technology or biological mechanism works, but they are still drawn to pictures, catchy headlines, and concise sentences just like any other average person. My courses in biology/health sciences gave me the flexibility to understand both levels – the technical jargon and the more commonly-used terms. Journalism courses helped me to be aware of my audience and determine which level of detail would best tell them what they need to know.

A veteran science writer once told me that it’s more important for a journalist to understand how science works than to know everything possible within a particular field; new research changes our understanding of the human body every day. But if a journalist can approach a study with the scientific method in mind and practice, then he/she will know better than to communicate something at face value. Medical professionals need to be fact-checked, too.

Hussain: Your story “Using language skills to detect Alzheimer’s” draws upon linguistics, cognitive science, and neuroscience in a health setting. What are some ways you, as a writer, approach explaining these interdisciplinary areas of research?

KW: I love interdisciplinary. For this particular article, I had to organize three different studies into common themes and explain how each made an argument that language is a potential tool for detecting Alzheimer’s disease before it happens. Because this message was coming from several different disciplines, I think it was easier to convince the reader that this is a plausible idea. The challenge was communicating all this concisely and engagingly. I still have lots of room to improve on that.

Hussain: Which science writers are your favorites to follow and why?

KW: I’ve followed several science news outlets for a while, but didn’t really think about following individual writers until recently. Right now, my favorites are Nsikan Akpan from PBS NewsHour and freelance writer Cassandra Willyard. Akpan communicates science news with a lot of personality and through several different kinds of media. He uses humor and energy as a way to draw in the public to scientific discoveries. Willyard, on the other hand, writes narrative ledes that read like fiction but are actually introducing you to a story that’s real.
She also knows how to be witty and objective at the same time.

Hussain: Name one book everyone should read.

KW: The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini. I love how Hosseini creates the portrait of a war-torn country through the eyes of an evolving protagonist. Hosseini’s style is clean, meaningful, and makes an unhappy ending satisfying. This is a style that I hope to emulate – one that provides the reader with a lot of depth but does not overwhelm with details.

Science is like a jungle sometimes. It makes me wonder how I keep from going under.

Scientists, journalists, policymakers have emphasize the need to communicate through the right media. Science would exercise a great power buy embracing newspapers, video shows, and social media. Researchers can take to the streets and demand authority among the post-truth alternative facts. In society, what kind of a voice should science have?

Concerns for science’s role in society vary from the reasonable to wacky to eerie. Some people want empirical-based approaches to policymaking. Others point to an opportunistic, utility-driven vision of mankind. A never-ending search for truth and validity has guided the disillusioned turning towards a promising goal. And there was never any rest for the weary.  The need for progress in pushing forward knowledge for its own sake stand among moral outrage over injustice and inequality.  But more dangerous than world of post-truth alternative facts is an authoritative appeal to intelligence. Public health authorities have shown anxiety about the exercise of individual agency, wrote Ari N. Schulman, senior editor of the New Atlantis. This has ranged from concerns of disease threats to the ability of the public to make lifestyle choices. Science as a neutral authority for answering questions runs throughout these issues.

In a world of tense conflicts and uncertainty, it is easy to appeal to an authoritative “science.” Journalists, politicians, and even scientists themselves might proclaim “science says…” or “according to research….” This can make what they say appear more valid. Many people think scientists are always getting closer to true, absolute answers. It might be a cure for cancer, a solution to climate change, or any other “magical” wave of the wand. But science is far from any sort of “sleight of hand.” Without context, justification, or a humanized voice, this rhetoric can be troublesome. It could become dogmatic, inauthentic, or plain wrong. Though science has done wonders for mankind, writers should know the limits of inquiry.

Science can give accurate descriptions of the world, but it must avoid pitfalls. Scientists should be people who want to make the world a better place. Teaching science as an evolving body of knowledge would help society trust scientists. Instead of taking research for granted, people would see scientists as human beings.

Maybe science can exercise an authority from its own intelligence? The science enthusiasts who want to preserve curiosity in a dark world often appeal to this. Skills in problem-solving and analytic thinking would mean scientists deserve a voice. Intelligence determining social status has had a place in life going back to the days of Plato, wrote Stephen Cave, senior research fellow of the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence at the University of Cambridge. “To say that someone is or is not intelligent has never been merely a comment on their mental faculties. It is always also a judgment on what they are permitted to do,” Cave wrote.

Christopher Columbus Park, Boston.

I sat bored out of my mind in my Introduction to Latino Studies course. I had to take this class to satisfy one more elective requirement before I could graduate. The professor explained the culture of the course. We were there to understand one another. We would be free to express ourselves in a safe space. There were no right or wrong answers.

And at this point I noticed another divide between me and the rest of the world.

I thought this was a ridiculous approach to education. I have never been taught that there are no right or wrong answers. Yes, intelligent human beings need to acknowledge pros and cons of both sides with subjectivity and personal biases. College campuses need to make people feel safe to express ideas. And everyone in society grapples with difficult questions that will never end up with a “perfect” answer, if there could be such a thing. But none of these concerns would imply that there are no right or wrong answers.

Perhaps what is implied by such a foolish claim is not that there are no right or wrong answers is that people should feel the opportunity to exercise any belief and opinion they want to. But, by justifying this opportunity on the grounds that there are no right or wrong answers, students won’t take into the world of: “normative” beliefs, question-all-assumptions, etc. Instead of heeding to truth and precision, students who espouse this viewpoint shelter themselves on naïve beliefs of the world. This view of the world lets the individual decide what he or she believes is right and wrong. As college campuses take up discussions and forums to make students feel safe, they guarantee echo chambers in which students fail to grow.

Still, answers shouldn’t be forced onto others. A post-truth world needs “right” and “wrong” answers, but they should not be entertained in such a way that one cannot reason through them. An analytic approach to understanding the world can find clarity, validity, and justification behind what might appear to be questions with “no right or wrong answers.”

Similarly, as scientists take roles in the public sphere, the grounds for truth and validity aren’t the same as they were in the lab. They may have become successful scientists by finding the right answers to the right problems, but, they must teach people to think for themselves and question authority. How could a scientist instill values of defiance and contrarianism in such a way that isn’t dogmatic or conformist?

And this is how the analytic mind emerges.

NASA exhibit at the 2017 Annual American Association for the Advancement of Science conference.

A curiosity that finds answers. Science as a way to view the world. GMO debates would be framed with greater accuracy and compassion. Evidence-based policymaking could heed to its the limits of its epistemic knowledge. Climate change can be discussed in a way that is truthful, yet sympathetic. The replication crisis of the social sciences can be discussed with sensationalizing. Quantum computing can be appreciated for its practicality but also its elegant physics.

The general public can feel confident about the true value of science. And scientists themselves can develop their role in society. Such an analytic mind would foster an empathetic wisdom for all people. Seeking purpose in whatever scientific research is going on, people can beyond the sole pursuit of practical benefits and the growing post-truth binary between truth and fiction. These values might be the beauty, wisdom, utility, or skepticism. Whatever these values are, maybe we can figure out what science is.