I don't think it's widely appreciated how important high-quality science journalism is and how much effort it requires. Limited resources, time constraints and the pressure to publish sensationalist articles can compromise the quality of the work. Two recent examples illustrated this.
I am a fan of Malcolm Gladwell and his brand of writers (their books and articles make entertaining reads and add much to literary journalism and nonfiction); I just have a problem with it being called scientific writing. I read actual science on a daily basis. This is not it.
In this week's Nature we are told that "tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree" and that molecular biologist Kevin Peterson's work "changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution."
The seemingly never-ending contraction of the media industry has resulted in a shedding of specialists in every journalistic medium. That does not, however, mean that the public's hunger for information about science, medicine and technology is shrinking.
To re-read the original text is to be reminded, in all sorts of unexpected ways, how far we have come. Its author has since
In an interview with Wired senior editor Adam Rogers, Miéville gives insights on how readers should approach The City & The
I'm a science writer and, as a science writer, I am constantly amazed at how much stranger science is than science fiction.
"Americans don't like an unattractive character who is not redeemed at the centre of a novel," he says. "And maybe it's a
The parts of the book that I liked the least were Hofstadters's excursions into whimsy. I felt that he had overdosed on Lewis