The Blue Notebook

A recent addition to my reading pile is Best Science Writing 2007, (this year’s book with last year’s writing, a little confusing for the literal-minded folks in the crowd) and it’s a real treat because I’ve been on a media fast (or at least a very austere diet) for a few years now and so missed most of these wonderful pieces.

One I was sure to have caught back in the old days is Elizabeth Kolbert’s New Yorker article “Butterfly Lessons,” first  because I was so capitvated by Field Notes from a Catastrophe,  and second because ever since La Bonita and I went out with Bob Pyle on one of his field seminars, I’ve been very tuned in to all things lepidoptera-ish.

I say this article is science writing done brilliantly because Kolbert uses story so expertly to both frame what she’s trying to convey, and to increase its impact, and its persistence in memory.

Continue Reading »

A few weeks ago Jim Johannessen of Coastal Geological Services announced the release of a technical report called Beaches and Bluffs of Puget Sound and the Northern Straits. Behind this mild-sounding title is a detailed analysis of how key aspects of the Puget Sound coastal habitat are being compromised by shoreline modifications, particularly the building of retaining walls or bulkheads. I was amazed to learn that more than 800 miles (34%) of the Puget Sound shoreline has been artificially modified in this way; I was more amazed to learn how much of a negative impact this practice has had on important shorline features such as gravel beaches and eelgrass beds.

As fascinating as the report is, what’s really intriguing to me is the web site where the report is posted. Continue Reading »

According to an article from EcoGeek.com Toyota joined GM and Ford in opposing a law that would require more efficient vehicles. “The Union of Concerned Scientists, Tom Friedman and others are asking why…and whether Toyota still deserves it’s Green Image.”

And I’m asking why isn’t anyone talking about greenhouse gasses? So much that is being said fossil fuels right now is so off the topic it’s not even funny. Try this. Go to epa.gov/greenvehicles. Do a sort on the “greenhouse gasses” column. The Toyota Prius (OK I admit I bought one a few years ago) comes out at the top of the list.

There’s a lot of things I’m not happy about with my Prius, like the 40 pounds of nickel-metal hydride in the back. Not only do I have to figure out what to do with it after only 100,000 miles, but I also have to pay three grand if I want replacement batteries. (Bio-diesel is looking pretty good right now.)

What I don’t like about this campaign against Toyota is the tone of moral outrage and righteous indignation some commentators are managing. It’s a car company folks, and there’s no shortage of felony corporate polluters out there if you really want to go after someone.

  In an earlier post (Don’t confuse me with the truth) I talked about the Center for Disease Control’s flu pamphlet, and the research that showed it wasn’t getting its message across. Quite the opposite in fact.

Well, I’ve been thinking about that brochure since then, and finally decided to do a rewrite of it myself. I had some fun with it, but do see a few remaining issues.

First of all there are some references that wouldn’t transfer very well to other cultures. (We called this “geopolitically incorrect” at my last job.) Not only do you risk causing offence with a culture-bound reference but it makes the document hard to translate.

The other issue I see is the (attempted) use of humor or irony, and the conversational tone. Both of these are also hard to translate, both culturally and linguistically. More importantly, the CDC probably has a style sheet that expressly forbid levity or colloquialisms.

All in all though I think my rewrite is not bad for a first draft, and with some design help (get rid of the oragne and blue color scheme I say, and start from scratch) it certainly would not have the problem of the original version—where people remembered the myths instead of the facts.

A few years ago I interviewed for a job writing internal documentation in the hardware division of a high-tech company. Without giving me any other information, the program manager handed me a small piece of plastic and said “How would you document this?”

The first thing I asked him was “who’s the audience, and what do they need to accomplish?” I had a lot of other questions too of course but none of them made sense (to me at least) without first finding out what the whole point of the exercise was to begin with.

Now I’m reading Robin Hood Marketing by Katya Andresen, and on the first page of the first chapter, “The Heart of Robin Hood Marketing,” she says “the key to marketing is to focus on our audiences” and “marketers set goals according to what they want people to do.” Sounds a lot like technical writing to me!

Continue Reading »

An article by Chris Mooney in a recent issue of Seed Magazine has this pull-quote at the top of the page: 

If we’re serious about building a society that makes scientifically informed decisions, then science needs to figure out a way to get its message across effectively (Emotional Rescue, Seed Magazine, May/June 2007).

What I’m not clear on is why it’s assumed that it’s up to scientists to do the communicating. There’s this funny cultural quirk we westerners seem to have about how we’re supposed to be able to sing, dance, and play the old bassoon; but being a scientist and communicating about science are completely different activities, and the ones who can do both well are definitely the exception and not the rule. ( A tip of the fedora to E. O. Wilson, the member of this exclusive company whom I’ve been reading most recently.)

Continue Reading »