Like most boys, he loved the outdoors. As a child in Calcutta, India he would roam the unpaved streets for hours. By the end of the day he would accumulate pockets of rocks he would study outside.

“I yearned for outdoor life,” says Basu with a smile. But, in college he followed his parents wishes and went to engineering school. It only took two months before Basu dropped out to pursue a more fulfilling career in geology. “I disliked the mentality of the money-oriented engineering students," Basu recalled in a recent interview in his office in the Geology Building on the Bloomington campus.

Basu’s decision to switch from engineering to geology was a smart one. After earning a PhD in geology from Indiana University in 1975, he went on to accomplish great things.

He has won three distinguished service awards from Indiana University, the Geological Society of America, and the Cultural Association of Bengal (North America). Dr. Basu received the recognition for his hard work and dedication to the subject of geology. For five years, from 2003 to 2008, Dr. Basu also held the Herman B. Wells Endowed Professorship given to an Indiana University professor whose vision and character have led to outstanding levels of achievement in their career and service to humanity.

In his research, his main focus is on sedimentary rocks. Sedimentary rocks are important because they can be used as construction material because they are soft and easy to cut. Also, sedimentary rocks often form reservoirs in sedimentary basins where petroleum can be found. Basu says he is most proud of field work that predicted and found channel sandstones in India, used for exploration of coal.

As much as he loves the study of geology that has brought him all these awards. Basu’s most rewarding moments have not been found in the field, but in the classroom. Visit his classroom in the limestone Geology Building on 10^th St, and you will see him passionately teaching students about geology. Outside the classroom, he is just as dedicated. Basu says he loves watching student learn something about the natural world. They may not become geologists, but he hopes they will.

He can recall two incidences that made him realize he was making a difference in the lives of students. The first came 15 years back when a student wrote to him saying that had it not been for his support she might have dropped out of school and left geology.

The second incident came a few years back. After punishing a freshman student for academic dishonesty. Some two years down the road, while working at the Tudor Room and finding Basu eating lunch, the student approached, introduced herself and in front of three other lunch-partners thanked him for setting her straight.

Basu looks back on the day he decided to switch from engineering to geology with a smile. That day is what led him to the happy life he leads now. Because of that decision so many years ago, he gets to be around the two things he loves most, geology and his students.

-Stephanie Pascarella

In journalism we are taught to write with the reader in mind, Angier doesn’t forget that. Often I felt as though Angier was writing specifically to and about me.

I admit to being the type of person who avoids math and science at all cost. When hearing that someone is majoring in chemistry, physics or statistics, I always think, “Oh my, how smart that person must be to take such a hard subject." I now understand that with some patience anyone can love science and math. In fact, Angier’s book taught me that everyone should love science and math because it a part of everything we do.

Angier breaks down the components of each science so it is easy to understand, even for a science-phobe like myself. She makes sure to specify the point that science and math are everywhere in our everyday lives. To go through life with out science would be impossible. No one can afford not to understand science, it’s what makes up our lives, quite literally too!

After reading Angier’s book I know so much more about science. Angier breaks down every science from chemistry to geology. She explains antimatter and the structure of DNA, concepts that are daunting until, in Angier’s hands, it becomes obvious there is nothing to fear.

Because I read The Canon, I feel like I’m a better science writer. Not only did I learn a lot about the basics of science, but Angier’s writing style taught me a lot as well. I can elaborate more on the details of science and am more knowledgeable.

My only dislike about her writing was that the colorful style sometimes made it hard to understand basic concepts. There were a few times her wordiness got to be so much, I had to go back and reread the sentence just to get the main point.

I would recommend this book to anyone. People who have a background in science will appreciate Angier’s passion for the subject. Those not knowledgeable about science will understand much more after reading The Canon.

-Stephanie Pascarella

When first told about this assignment, I have to admit several emotions came over me. I was excited, of course. I knew it would be interesting to observe a lab. But I was also nervous. I had never watched a “real” lab in action. The last time I was in a lab was 12^th grade biology, when I dissected a cat. Still, I figured if I could stomach that, observing a professional lab setting would be cake.

After several visits to the geology and astronomy departments (where I had zero luck), I ventured to the Psychological and Brain Sciences building. While roaming aimlessly through the hallways, I noticed displays explaining psychological terms along with pictures. After just a few of the displays, I grew interested in the science of psychology. This gave me determination to find a psychology lab for the assignment

X Marks the Spot:

After "bulldogging" several websites on my laptop at home, I came across one that jumped out at me. It was Professor Robert Goldstone’s, on precepts and concepts (http://cognitrn.psych.indiana.edu/index.html). It was the colorfulness and design of the site that drew my attention. However, the detailed links and mounds of interesting information kept me there, for what seemed like hours.

I finally found the number to the lab and called it. A friendly voice came over the phone. “Precepts and Concepts Lab, this is Drew." I explained my assignment, and Drew seemed very interested. He asked me a few questions, including when it would be convenient for me to stop by. I set up some times slots and soon I was all set to observe my very first professional lab.

Meeting the Mastermind:

My first scheduled meeting with Drew was interesting. He explained to me that he was a graduate student in psychology at Indiana University and was helping Professor Goldstone on his cognitive studies. He gave me a tour of the lab and introduced me to some key people in the laboratory. I was only able to meet Dr. Goldstone briefly. He travels often and was getting ready to leave town.

I have to admit I was surprised with how friendly Dr. Goldstone was. In my own mind, I’d pictured scientist sas stuffy and nerdy. But these are adjectives I would never associate with this man. Between his friendliness and the pictures of his daughter and family assessible on his website, it was growing clear this was no rigid, self-absorbed scientist, but rather an interesting, knowledgeable PhD, who was more “normal” than stereotypes allow.

The Lab:

I have to be honest. I thought the lab set up was going to be something extravagant. I guess Hollywood has gotten the best of me. I had assumed there would be some lavish equipment and high tech security everywhere. To my surprise, the lab I observed was somewhat simple. A dozen computers lined two walls of a room, each separated by a partition. In the rooms next to the computer lab were offices where the graduate students, post doctorates, and undergraduate research assistants sit. Here they analyze data, come up with new ideas, and observe study subjects.

Teamwork:

There are no scientists in white jackets adding mysterious liquids to test tubes in this lab. While labs like this exists (on the other side of campus), the laboratories of cognitive sciences are a bit different. In a sweater and jeans, graduate students analyze data on several large Mac computers. They sit in their offices compiling and observing graphs that, while they make ense to them, are completely mind boggling to me. Dr Goldstone’s lab has been in existence now for about 20 years. It is set up in almost a hierarchy. At the top of the totem pole is, of course, Dr. Goldstone. Below him are post-docs (people who are working with him after earning their PhDs), then graduate students in the Psychological and Brain Sciences Department. Last, but not least are the undergraduate research assistants, usually seniors in psychology, whose main role is to run the many experiments the graduate students create. Then, of course, the research subjects, who are freshmen and sophomores in psychology classes.

Grad students or post-docs create experiments which they run past Dr. Goldstone in an hour-long meeting. After some input from Dr. Goldstone, they take the constructive advice and revise the experiment. After several meetings, the experiment is set to go, run by the undergrad RA’s.

I had no idea so many people went into the making and execution of an experiment. Month’s, even years of hard work are put into these studies.

The Experiment:

The experiment I observed was created by Sam Day. Day is one of the post-docs helping Dr. Goldstone with his research. The purpose of the lab, according to the RA, Kristin, was, “ to study how people take new information and apply it to tasks that seem different."

Twenty-one freshmen walked in a single filed line and found a computer to sit at. After a few minutes of the RA preparing the computers for the experiment, she gave the subject instructions, and soon the experiment began.

It was interesting to see the “behind-the-scenes” perspective of a lab. I myself was a subject for an experiment when I was a freshman, but I had never seen all the hard work that went into its preparation.

Final Thoughts:

I’m glad I was able to experience a professional lab setting. In order to be a great journalist you have to have a first hand experience about what you are writing about. Now that I am more knowledgeable about what a lab actually entails, I am hoping it will make me a better science writer.

I liked seeing how the experiment was put together from start to finish. There is so much information that has to be compiled as well as many people who help to execute it well.

A lab is almost like a team. Each person involved in an experiment, from the P.I to the freshmen students being tested, has an important role to play.

I enjoyed this experience greatly and would observe another lab in a heartbeat. It was interesting, educational, and fun.

You are in charge of writing about many topics for Penn Medicine. Is there one you find most interesting?

It’s hard to say. If I had to pick one area that has totally captivated me since I was a kid it would have to be, broadly, the science of the brain, neuroscience. How the brain works.

Which subject is most challenging to write about?

For me, the immune system. It is so complex. Immune response is so important to everyday life. The way your body handles it is very complex. There’s adaptive and innate immunity, the different cells in a person’s body, there’s a lot that goes into it. It’s amazingly interesting but also complex. Figuring out how to boil it all down for an article or press release can get tricky. I find myself having to go back and give myself the 101 pep talk. I define the terms in my head and review before I go on any interviews.


Do you ever get overwhelmed with science?

Sometimes, but I always go back to a very favorite book of mine, Bird by Bird, by Ann Lamott. Have you ever read it?


I have not, but I might have to now.

You should! If I’m ever feeling overwhelmed I go back and read her book. It reminds me when I’m tackling complex subjects that I need to take it one word at a time, one sentence at a time. If you do that the whole will come together. The title comes from her brother. He had a to do a report in high school on the birds of North America, and their father gave her brother the advice, “Son, just take it bird by bird." Don’t look at all the flocks at once; just talk it bird by bird. You hear this kind of advice in a lot of different ways, but it’s great advice to remember, especially as a science writer when there is a lot of detail involved.

You were once the editor of The Scientist as well as a freelance journalist. Which job did you like best?

For me it always about blending work with my personal life. They were both rewarding in different ways. I always knew I wanted to have a freelance position to see if I could make it, and I did. I did really well with it. My book also gave me a chance to write about something other than receptors, environmental science, etc., and professional columns where you were told what to write. Freelance gave me a chance to write about what I liked. My training is actually in environmental science, not bioscience. I learned that on the job. I think that is where you learn the most, more so then in any classroom. Now I’m in my midcareer and I love being back with the students and mentoring. It gives me a sense of accomplishment. It is also steady and there is a certain comfort in that. I like having a secure position where I can grow.


Did you learn more as freelance writer or at The Scientist?

Well my first position I learned a lot from the editor. I think every job you have you will learn something new. I am always learning new skills, like how to compromise. Different editors want different things, so you have to adjust to that.


Would you say you’ve learned a lot just being in a science environment?

Oh yes. Like I said before, any time you are doing hands-on experience, you learn more. I always encourage students, in any profession, to get out into the field.

What advice would you give aspiring science writers about getting a good start in the world of science writing?

I’m going to refer to my book for this one. It depends on your background or interests. Know it’s a one-way move from being a scientist to a science writer. It’s much harder to go back to being a scientist once you switch to science writing. It is a competitive job market. Be a quick study. Hopping from field to field, you need to be able to know how to learn quickly and write about it. Most science writers have had a lifelong passion for writing. Not all scientists are good communicators, as you may know. Ha-ha.


That is a stereotype we talked about in class.

Well, I think it is somewhat true. You have to be able to blend knowing science and being a good writer. Not all scientists have the mindset to write for the general public. They are great with coming up with acronyms, ha. Also, be good at communicating with others about science broadly, not so much in depth.


Why do you say that?

Knowing broadly about a subject, even if you are not educated deeply in it can help you a lot when interviewing a scientist. You won’t feel as lost and you’ll have something to fall back on, feel confident about.


Many science writers believe science is found in everything. Do you agree that any story can be made into a science story?

Yea, I think so. Sometimes you need to be a bit creative. It may not be very obvious what the science spin on the story is.


At the NASW meeting, I attended a session that touched on “pack” journalists, the journalists who use spress releases as their story, resulting in the same story in different media outlets. How much of a problem do you feel this is? And if it is a problem, how do you suggest changing it?

Especially when something is hyped with little data, everyone wants to write about it, but there is minimal information on the subject, so the journalists turn to the press release. Answering the question about how to change it is tough. Off the top of my head, I would say better communication between the scientists and writers. Sometimes it is hard because the journalists are asked to do more with less. So it’s a tough question.


Is there a secret to good science writing?

Lots of background readings! Always brush up before going into an interview so you have the basics in your mind. Try to think visually when you write! Always write with metaphors; it helps make it understandable to a non-scientist. Ask a lot of questions and always go back and edit, edit, edit! Oh, and know your audience.


Can anyone be a science writer?

If you have the interest and the drive and you don’t have any knee-jerk reactions to science or math. You don’t need a science background to make you a great science writer.


But, do you feel your educational background in science gives you an advantage compared to someone without such degrees?

Nope, I don’t think so. Although with interviewing I would say it makes it easier in some cases. It has been helpful when I’m interviewing scientists themselves.


You mean knowing terms and processes of science?

No, I mean some scientist like to know when you come in that you have a background in science. They like to know you are on the same page as them.


So, anyone be a science writer?

If you have the interest and the drive and you don’t have any jerk reactions to science or math. You don’t need a science background to make you a great science writer.

-Stephanie Pascarella

Petit reads RSS feeds, the news of major news outlets, and the posts of other sources, and then he blogs his heart out. One thing I found interesting was that he always includes the press releases in his blogs. This led to Petit’s most interesting point — that journalists too often use a press release as their story.

A good journalist, said Petit, will stray away from the “pack” of journalist reporting the same stories. The journalist, who goes the extra mile to take a different spin on a story, is really doing the job of a good journalist.

An example of following the pack was a recent story entitled, “Ancient plant has hot stinky sex." Reuters picked up this story, only changing the title to, “Primitive plant has hot stinky sex." ABC (Australia) along with a long list of other news outlets also joined the pack.

How does a journalist break away from the pack? Petit says it is simple. Everything in life, in one way or another, has to do with science. An important factor in differentiating your story from other journalist is by doing research and figuring out what aspect of a story has not been covered. What kind of journalist would we be if we took press releases and fooled the public into thinking they were our own? How would a journalist benefit from that? What good would the public obtain from it?

Put simply, journalists must be watchdogs for the public, exposing important information. They must also be bulldogs, grabbing hold of a story and digging until there is no more dirt to dig up. The more effort put into a story, the more everyone will benefit.

Speaker #2: Craig Stoltz

Craig Stoltz, reviewer for Health News Review, began his talk by logging onto his website, healthnewsreview.org. He quickly explained that the mission of the website was this: to create “better reporters to inform audiences so they can make better medical decisions.” In short, he hopes to improve reporters’ stories, so the audience can get the most out of them.

How does he do this? With a scale, of course!

To be eligible for review, a health news article should:


• Be relevant to the management and prevention of disease and in particular should relate to claims about treatments, procedures, or tests

• Discuss an intervention that is intended for use in humans or one for which the link to human application is at least implied.


• Make explicit or implicit claims about the efficacy of treatments, procedures or tests.

To evaluate journalists’ health stories, Stolz checks to see whether or not a story:

• mentions the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure
• covers costs
• engages in disease mongering
• grasps and conveys the quality of the evidence
• covers harms of the treatment/test/product/procedure
• establishes the true novelty of the approach
• frames the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure
• relies solely or largely on a news release
• offers independent sources and discloses possible conflicts of interests of sources
• mentions alternative treatment/test/product/procedure options

I enjoyed hearing what Stoltz had to say about his website. Far too often journalists stray away from the important “newsworthy” information. A list of criteria for a story is a great way to keep a writer focused and, in turn, to benefit the audience.

Speaker #3: Curtis Brainard

Lastly, Curtis Brainard, staff writer for Columbia Journalism Review and ‘The Observatory’ (cjr.org) writer spoke about covering the environment. He reads RSS feeds, and bookmarks important articles and webpages which he then reads everyday.

Brainard stressed the importance of doing research and having a good understanding of what you are writing about. As journalists, getting the facts straight is part of our job. We should always check and recheck the facts.

-Stephanie Pascarella

***

Extra!

One thing Stoltz said that I found astonishing is that a lot of journalists don’t use the site. It’s mostly the public. I couldn’t help but think how great it would be if health writers actually took a look at these criteria and applied it to their writing!

–Jeff Maitland