Carl Zimmer (2017)

There is plenty to be worried about. There are plenty of political actions that weaken science education. Florida, for example, just made biology classes friendlier to creationism. (Details here: http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=2793 ) But I'm worried more about systematic problems--the winner-take-all approach to science, as manifested in science fairs (My own experiences were the subject of this piece I wrote last year: https://www.statnews.com/2016/04/13/science-fairs-white-house/ ) I think our society would be much better off if high school students graduated with a sound understanding of statistics, for example--not just the kids who go out of their way to take statistics.

I'll give a few thoughts here, but for a longer reply, see this: http://carlzimmer.com/writers.html

1. Start writing, rather than talking about becoming a "writer." Write for yourself at first if you have to. You need to become better. (We all do.)

2. Wean yourself from jargon that you've learned in grad school. Find plain English alternatives.

3. Decide if you want to be a full-time writer, or make it part of being a scientist. These are very different routes.

4. If you want to stay a scientist, figure out if you are going to be rewarded by your scientific community for writing, or if you'll suffer the "Carl Sagan effect."

5. When you feel ready to write for outlets, pitch them! Don't wait for someone to give you permission. In the end, it's all on you.

One approach I try to take is to report on basic science, to show how this kind of research isn't some odd diversion but a profoundly significant undertaking--both in the way it expands our understanding of the natural world and the insights that can lead to new kinds of technology, medicine, and other applications. We science reporters should resist flashiness, and try to understand how science is advancing in important ways that are going to endure.

Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything is something of a miracle of a book about science--incredibly accessible but also sweeping in scope.

Glancing at the contract for the story I'm working on and thinking about how I won't get paid if I don't turn in something!

The administration, in some areas, seems to not have any approach at all. They are not hiring scientists to top policy positions. That won't end well. See, for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/science-technology-white-house-trump.html?_r=3

No relation, I'm afraid.

I had a great time working on my new book, on heredity. I just finished it after a couple years of effort, and it will be out next spring. I visited a number of places that are important to the history of heredity, and I also went to labs to talk to scientists who are changing how we think about heredity. I also had to read a ton of papers along with a bunch of books to find the right pieces to fit together into what (I hope) is a compelling story.

I am optimistic, based on conversations I've had since "Game of Genomes" with people in the genomics field. But it will still take a few years before you can get all your raw data. (Here is the link to the series: https://www.statnews.com/feature/game-of-genomes/season-one/ )

I have always wondered how lawyers handle science in the courtroom. The statistics behind DNA identification, for example, can be really confusing--and it's easy to exploit that confusion to raise doubts. In science writing, it's always important to value concepts over jargon. Minimizing jargon in the courtroom might help--although legal demands might make that harder than in a newspaper article.

Biosphere 2 certainly showed how badly things could go, and sometimes for unexpected reasons. (Concrete was a bad choice! http://biology.kenyon.edu/slonc/bio3/2000projects/carroll_d_walker_e/whatwentwrong.html ) But technology has advanced so much since the 1990s that I'd be guardedly optimistic that a human settlement on Mars would escape such troubles. I'm just skeptical that we'll marshall the collective will and money to launch such a mission.

Robots to Saturn and Jupiter's moons! I think it's more likely life is there, and, if it is, then it's going to be weirder than Martians could ever be.

Thanks! (Friday's Elk is my newsletter: https://tinyletter.com/carlzimmer )

About evolution: some people think that if evolution is true (it is!), then all sorts of morally repugnant things must follow. That's not the case, but it's hard to make that clear. Some people find the process of evolution hard to fathom--the idea that complex things can evolve. That's a legitimate question to ask, and evolutionary biologists have answers. Conveying those answers in grade school or high school can be a challenge, though, because evolution taps into so many different branches of biology--genetics, ecology, paleontology, etc. It also doesn't help that a lot of teachers are worried about getting grief for teaching a lot of evolution, so they don't dive deep into as they should. I would encourage teachers to look for the cool case studies, whether it involves feathered dinosaurs evolving into birds, or bacteria evolving into superbugs. The evidence is there in the bones and the DNA, and it's fascinating to boot.

Make sure their methods and research aren't so overwhelming that they can't actually reflect on what they've done and explain it clearly. This is their first step--they don't have to pretend to be full-blown scientists.

You might simply want to "cold call" them (or is it cold email now?) If there's a writer who's doing stuff you like, get in touch. It's not easy for writers and photographers to collaborate, because it's an expensive proposition. But there are great things that come out of such partnerships, like this piece on fisheries in Mexico: http://www.vqronline.org/reporting-articles/2015/04/ocean-apart

I think story-telling can be very effective. The trick is to respect your audience, rather than condescending to them, and to make sure that anecdotes don't trump data. It's also crucial to find individuals to make the characters in your stories. Stories are about people, in the end.

Wait for their prefrontal cortex to kick in.

As a reporter, I don't make cases. When I'm reporting on biodiversity, I sometimes write about the bad outcomes of species extinctions, and sometimes I discuss the positive side--such as the estimated value of ecosystem services. (i.e., https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/science/earth/putting-a-price-tag-on-natures-defenses.html ) On the other hand, there is a lot of psychology research that explores how framing influences how people take in science news and form opinions about the issues involved. Negativity can be very appealing as a frame, but positivity turns out to be very powerful.

Don't make ships in a bottle! (https://medium.com/@bobbie/carl-zimmer-on-writing-dont-make-a-ship-in-a-bottle-e163795c95af )

If you meant genetic evolution--a change in the frequencies of genetic variants--I think there will be some subtle changes in people's height, blood pressure, weight, etc. It's happening now, and will continue to do so. Here's one example of the research documenting ongoing evolution: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3868361/ I know that this isn't as fun as our evolving wings or giant brains, but evolution doesn't run like a movie.

Err...travel back to the early 1990s, before magazines had web sites? Here's my own story: http://carlzimmer.com/writers.html But you need to find your own way, and the routes in 2017 are different than in 1997!

Having just finished my next book, on heredity, I'm taking some time to relax and regroup. But podcasting is certainly intriguing me more and more.

There are actually programs to get scientists to speak more accessibly, adopting techniques from improv theater! See, for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/attention-all-scientists-do-improv-with-alan-aldas-help.html

If we're not extinct and if we have a decent standard of living as a species, I'll be satisfied. Everything else will be a bonus.