J460 Science Writing

Watching Bacteria Move: The genomics lab of Daniel Kearns

Theresa Bradtke — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:45:34 +0000

Thursday November 21: 9:00-10:30 am

I have to admit I was not too fond of sitting in a lab for 10 hours. The assignment was intimidating, and as much as I tried to get into different labs, there were many obstacles. Everyone in the class had an interesting lab, they were working with neuroscience, or geology, or even machines, and I felt that no matter how many people I asked, or how many places I happened upon, the lab assignment loomed over my head. I could not get the thought that the lab was exactly like the mundane high school experience over again.

Leaving my L390 Children’s Literature class in Jordan Hall, I happened to mention the assignment in passing to a classmate. She told me that Biology is the place to be. Not only is it practical, but the experiments done in the lab are fascinating, especially with genomics.

After learning a bit about genomics through the beer article, I walked to Simon Hall 409. I was amazed at how new the building was, and upon walking into the lab, how neat, orderly, and clean I found it, full of machines that spin, glass-holding areas with large beakers, freezers, and water containers with what looked like it had electrodes inside. I could not help myself but look around at everything. All the machines had little stickers faces on them, which made me laugh.

I ran into two different post-doctoral students who explained to me that the lab was not just made for one group, but that it was sectioned off. They were going to get coffee and were in a hurry, so they could not explain the difference in the lab just then. But they told me that they were happy that I was doing an assignment like this and that exploring the lab will spark a lot of questions, and it did.

Before I knew it, I had spent an hour walking around. I was looking at data on the wall with charts that had letters and numbers on them with what seemed like an impossible code. A young woman came up to me as said she had overheard my conversation with the post-docs. She referred me to Daniel Kearns, the overseer of the lab. He was brilliant, she said, and helped many of the scientists with their studies, playing a very active role in everything having to do with molecular biology and genetics. I knew this was the lab I wanted to observe!

Friday November 22, 9:00-10:30am

After speaking with Daniel Kearns via email, I learned that there really were not any large scale experiments going on, but that there were always people around working on projects. I decided to come in as early as possible, to catch people setting up and spend as much time as I could there. The first person I happened to run into while walking again through the lab was Kearns himself. Young, with an ear-piercing, he was nothing like what I had expected, given his prestige. He was very friendly and open to having me meander through the lab.

Just talking to him made me think back to my sophomore year in high school when I worked for a brief period in New Zealand. The Katipiki Ecological Restoration Project, also known as KERP, is a non-profit organization designed to help improve the balance of nature and its inhabitants, and I was able to spend a month looking at marine life and the forest areas. My comrades back then were as enthusiastic as Kearns was about his lab and what was going on there. But somehow over the years I had fallen into a stereotypes, judging scientists as older adults I couldn’t relate to.

He explained that the portion of the lab that I was looking at was mainly centered on genomics. He introduced me to post-doctoral students, to undergrads who were testing out the lab to see if it was a good fit for them, and to doctoral students in the process of working on their own experiments. It was within this initial tour with its chit-chat that I found an experiment I wanted to know more about. This experiment became the center of my entire lab experience.

November 22, 10:30-11:30 pm: What I learned about the Kearns lab

Discussion between me and Daniel Kearns

What kind of lab is it?
It is a bacteriology lab and we use genetics and molecular biology to answer the questions we ask.

What is the field of science studied within the Kearns Lab?
We study bacterial motility. In particular, we study how bacteria move over the tops of surfaces.

What are the other areas studied in that lab (others have mentioned that there are other areas)?
All projects are related to motility in one way or another. The bacteria synthesize a motor to turn a corkscrew like filament that acts like a propeller to push the cells through the environment.

We are studying how flagellar genes are regulated and how the flagellum is assembled.
We study how cells change their physiology when moving over surfaces and the special proteins that are required to do so.
We study how a protein (that we call a "clutch") stops the flagella from rotating and prevents the cells from moving.
We study how cells stop moving and form a multicellular aggregate called a biofilm.

Who uses the lab? Is it all doctoral students?
I have four doctoral students, and one post-doctoral student. We also always have at least one undergraduate researcher in the lab.

Friday November 22, 11:30-3:00 pm

I was put in touch with Andy Phillips, a doctoral student. Now a second year PhD student, he holds an undergraduate degree in microbiology. He was very excited to tell me about what he was working on. Quickly putting asthe tests he was grading aside and began to familiarize me with how the lab works, and his contribution to it. He explained to me that the goal of the lab was to “identify, characterize, and understand new genetic components of multicellular behavior in undomesticated Bacillus subtilis.” His particular priority was to look at swrB.

From what I was told, the lab was there to study swarming and the motility of genes. Andy said that genes had the ability to turn on and off, and that all the present scientists were studying to better understand the "why" this was happening.

I found myself getting very interested in everything that he was saying, and I couldn’t help but ask him, why genetics of all the science fields, to which he didn’t hesitate ito reply, "I love genetics, it was my favorite class!”

He explained very thoroughly what he was working on. I was scared he was going to speak in jargon, but he used the phrase "bacterial swimming and swarming." This meant that when he studies the genetics, or the genetic regulation of large numbers of bacteria, he looks at how they move.

The Kearns Lab actually had two main projects going on. The project he was working on was a developmental project.

He explained that like a eukaryotic cell, we start off as a stem cell that can turn into any kind of cell in our bodies. He also said that prokaryote cells can do the same thing, but on a much more basic level.

* * *

Prokaryotes: Cells found in bacteria that do not have an encased nucleus; they have a nucleiod.

Eukaryotes: Cells found in higher animals and plants that have a clear and defined nucleus with it’s own encasing.

* * *

Where our cells turn into liver cells or an eye cell, there’s one type of bacterial cell that differentiates into one or two or three kinds of other cells. I found myself following intently a small informal lecture that Andy said he’s used for many of the students he has taught:

In our body system, we have two cell types. One is a single cell that can swim, and the other kind is chains of cells which are non-mobile, so they cannot move. There’s an evolutionary advantage we think runs along this sort of developmental scheme: These singles can go off and explore new areas and find new nutrient sources, and the chains can populate a niche that they are in and live and grow and divide. The species that is used in this lab was called Bacillus Subtilis. It’s a bacterium, that resides in the soil. It is harmless to humans.

Andy has been working on the project since last April. Another member of the lab works on the same project, but a different aspect. There was also undergrad student who is also working on this.

Friday November 22, 11:30-3:00 pm

As for the progress he’s seen, Andy could only say “Progress… that is a good question. We are learning more about the system. More questions pop up than answers.”

They have quite a bit of data. Dr. Kearns has only been at IU for four or five years, so it is a relatively new project. They are one of only a handful of labs in the scientific community that are looking at the phenomenon. There has not been much work done on motility development in the system.

Andy is working on competent cells, which move genetic material from one organism to the next. Within a large machine, there are four big beakers with a yellow solution and alumninum foil over the tops. The machine moves the solution around in a circle and mixes it. There is a small amount of foam on the tops of the solutions as they swish about. Andy is doing this to manipulate the genome of the organism.

For example, if you wanted to study how a cell moves, I know that there are five genes that are crucial to this function. I can knock out or regulate each of these genes in order to see how I can manipulate this function. We use these cells that I grow up and freeze down in order to move plasmids into Bacillus, and knock out genes.

He explained in great detail that once a gene is created it remains forever, or as long as we want it there. If they want something else, they can always make a new strain. So far, they had about 4500 strains developed and used to study the system, and make about a 1000 a year.

Question came pouring forth as to how can one destroy a strain, is it possible? Andy explained that really the best way is to just throw it away, but rarely do they throw any strain away because there is some use for it somewhere.

I sat there, each minute flying past as he explained to me thoroughly the way genetics worked within his experiment. For everything I didn’t understand, there was always a simple explanation that spurred on another question. One thing that really interested me was what community could this help?

Phillips believes that in 20 years when this process is all worked out, this can help other scientists develop methods to manipulate genes of other organisms, to control the developmental process of prokaryotes, the use of industry to develop antibiotics…things like that. And then I had to ask, (because of its importance within the science journalism field, do you think there is a sure fire breakthrough in store for this whole process?

Andy proceeded to explain swrB, his main focus. He went over a very intense Powerpoint presentation that explained the microbiology aspects of that genetic element. Calling the scientists very “heavy hitters,” he explained that their work was very important within the field.

We went through binary fission, and the difference between long and short cell chains. Although not completely known yet, Phillips explained that how long the chain is might or might not help in an environmental factor.

He answered, “Of course I do, we sort of have to. We have to be gung-ho about it. I think it is totally workoutable but it will take a little bit of time, in order for us to work it all out. It is incredibly complex. There is not much research done previously so we are kind of starting from scratch.”

Then came the next step, which really threw me. We were going to work with E. Coli. The yellow solution was an E. Coli bacteria solution. He explained that it was mainly a tool that they used to look at bacteria, genomics, and what they do.

Friday November 22, 3:00 – 4:30pm

After the presentation I was able to do some hands on experimenting with the E. Coli solution. I had forgotten that it was even there. I had always had this belief that E.Coli was deadly even to be near it. I asked Andy about it and he explained to be that the deadly form is a different strain. He said that everyone has E. Coli in their intestine and that having it even touch you would not be harmful and eating it would probably cause vomiting. (VERY COMFORTING).

It smelled awful, but we went to the large incubator that was spinning the 4 beakers of E. Coli solution. Andy showed me another machine that took small tubes in it and shot a laser through the sample to test how much of a culture was there and the concentration. We were measuring for .6. He let me use the long tubes to take samples from the large beakers and put them in the smaller containers for examining. As little of a job it was, I actually felt like I was contributing in a way, even though I tended to go too fast and get bubbles in the sample. I soon became a pro and we collected enough samples at the correct concentration. The process took time, but we soon collected all 4 of the larger beakers and put them in ice and left them in the cooler. I felt like a real scientist for a little while.

I transcribed the interview and went over my notes. Any questions I had I referred to Andy. He explained that this procedure was not a large scale assignment, but was more of a “lab chore.” In any way, it was very interesting to see.

Monday November 24, 10:00am

Went back to the Kearns Lab to collect photos. Andy was not there, or at least I did not see him, I emailed him to send me some of the photos from the powerpoint in order to place them within the notes and to verify some of the experiment’s procedures. Because of both of our schedule conflicts, I was unable to see how he measured the samples we took from the beakers.

–Theresa Bradtke

Scientists Confirm Mind/Body Connection

Martina Samm — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:06:27 +0000

Take a deep breath and relax.

Researchers have found more evidence of the mind/body connection. This time at a cellular level.

The study shows that the daily practice of relaxation can change the activity of genes that relate to how a healthy body deals with stress. Certain mindful activities produce a state of deep physiological rest. Meditation, repetitive prayer, biofeedback and tai chi are a few examples of activities that elicit this deep state of rest, known as the Relaxation Response (RR).

Researchers at The Benson-Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital released the findings in the July 2008 issue of the open-access journal PLoS One. Funding was provided by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and from the National Institutes of Health.

“The latest genetic findings point out that the mind is not separated from the body and Rene Descartes was in error in separating the two," explained Dr. Herbert Benson, co-author of the report. He is the director emeritus of the Benson-Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital and Mind Body Medical Institute Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Benson is internationally known for his work in the area of mind/body medicine. He described the steps to practice that create the calming effects on the mind and body in his book The Relaxation Response, published in 1975.

Previous studies have identified the genetic effects of RR on the cells of patients with post-traumatic stress disorder. This is the first study to show the genetic effect produced by RR in healthy individuals.

The study compared the gene expression profile of 19 healthy long-term practitioners of RR with that of 19 healthy gender and aged matched individuals who took part in eight weeks of training in the relaxation response. The profiles were then reassessed. Genetic expression profiles were analyzed using bioinformatics technology and computer software that creates a ‘biography’ or map of an individual’s genetic makeup from whole blood samples.

Researchers noted the number of differently activated genes between the three groups. Statistical formulas revealed that over 425 were shared by long-term and short-term practitioners. These results demonstrate that both long-term and short-term RR practice leads to consistent gene expression changes in the formation, development, and maturation of cells.

Researchers at Indiana University (IU) were quick to point out the small size of the sample in the study, but equally quick to point to the significance of the findings. The sample suggests the research should be treated more like a pilot study. Dr. Jennifer Steinbachs, evolutionary biologist and deputy director of The Center for Genomics and Bioinformatics at IU understands the importance of the findings.

“Anything we do will impact our gene expression," Steinbachs said. “Stress wreaks havoc and RR reduces the impact of stress.” On a more personal level, she added, “As I get better with my yoga, I will be impacting my genetic expression.”

Dr. Anne Prieto, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Indiana University, Bloomington expressed similar confidence in the effects of relaxation on a healthy person’s cells. “We create our own stimuli by simply thinking. We trick our body. The mind is a product of the brain. The brain is part of the body. There is no separation of mind and body.”

Stress is meant to be a short-term biological state of readiness that is experienced as an increase in heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rate and brain activity. Most people experience chronic stress.

“The thing that needs to be taken into consideration is that, I think, we underestimate the effects of stress on our normal daily lives…” said Prieto.

Chronic stress keeps the body in a constant state of readiness. On the molecular level, it decreases the ability of antioxidants to destroy free radicals, the natural byproduct of cells converting oxygen to energy. Free radicals create oxidative stress that deteriorates cells. Stress-related diseases and aging are the results.

The RR practitioners in the study showed a greater capacity for antioxidants to destroy free radicals, thereby reducing oxidative stress and cell damage. RR lessens the negative impact of stress.

–Martina Samm

For instructions on how to incorporate the relaxation response into a daily practice to decrease the negative effects of stress, go to

www.bhimgh.org/basics/whatis_rresponse_elicitation.asp

The Canon: Quirky and highly entertaining

Martina Samm — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:28:43 +0000

Natalie Angier is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author. The Canon, A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science is a New York Times Book Review Editors’ Choice recipient as well as Amazon.com Best Science Book of the Year. Her other books include Natural Obsessions, The Beauty and the Beastly, and Woman: An Intimate Geography, which was a National Book Award finalist. She has been a science writer for 25 years and a regular contributor to the Tuesday ‘Science Times’ section of the New York Times.

Angier begins by explaining why most people tend to disregard science. She writes, ”In the civic imagination, science is considered dull, geeky, hard, abstract and, conveniently, peripheral, now, perhaps, more than ever.” She points to the scientific community as being partly responsible for the lack of educating the public about just how science works. “We’ve failed”, she writes, “we’re pathetic when it comes to educating our nation’s youth. We’re punished by “the system”…that rewards scientists for focusing on research to the exclusion of everything else.” The Canon was written to alter public misconceptions and allow scientists to explain, simply and clearly, the fundamental principles of science that are the catalysts of discovery.

Angier ditches the dry and boring and makes basic scientific knowledge humorous and user-friendly. Science is a part of everyday life, and it’s to our advantage to see the connection. Scientists are getting closer to predicting weather patterns, solving the issue of global warming and, through genetic research, finding the cure for certain types of cancer. Moreover, Angier argues, by understanding the critical thinking, cause and effect reasoning and results based on facts of laboratory science, we can apply these same principles in the laboratories of our lives.

Angier’s approach to explaining science is witty, maybe even too witty. I found myself rolling my eyes at some of the puns and skimming over paragraphs in order to get to the science. I don’t recommend this approach. As I continued reading, I soon found myself skimming through the science to get to her next comeback. I don’t recommend this approach either, for the scientific information becomes secondary to the light-hearted writing style.

In between quotes from interviews with top scientist in the fields of chemistry, biology, physics, geology and astronomy, Angier uses her wit to explain basic scientific principles, reminding me of the wise-cracking kid in the back of the classroom who made the class fun for everyone, except maybe the teacher.

I absolutely recommend this book. Angier manages to write a great overview of basic science in a quirky, highly entertaining way. But it should be read at your leisure, say, over semester break. You will be humored and educated at the same time.

–Martina Samm

Angier’s Canon Sparkles (Sometimes Excessively)

Alex Farris — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:31:41 +0000

New York Times science writer Natalie Angier’s The Canon offers, in the words of the subtitle, a “whirligig tour of the beautiful basics of science.”

She covers all of the beautiful basics in this book, from the atomic reasons why solids have so little give to the unexpected dynamism of our planet to why creationism and intelligent design are pretty much bunk.

But for the most part, she speaks to the choir, which may not win her any new fans, especially those who previously looked askance at science. Then again, we college students, the biology minors and geology majors and PhD candidates, do form part of that choir, and at least for me, it puts to rest any questions about science’s ability to keep learning about our natural world.

The title is a bit misleading. Angier christens the book The Canon, even though she states multiple times that we don’t yet know everything. Historically, a “canon” has been a set of guidelines and beliefs, mostly of a religious nature, that are unchanging, set in stone, or otherwise quite certain. Many of these concepts, though, are incomplete; for example, we do not completely understand how a chain of amino acids bends and folds into an enzyme and how exactly that enzyme changes its substrate. Angier, however, wishes to deal only in the fundamentals of science, and this she does with fascinating skill.

She uses so much skill, in fact, that if one outside of the “choir” were to read this book with an open mind, that reader might join the just sign up to sing. The book bursts forth with metaphors, wordplay, and (a delight to anyone who has trouble grasping science) understandable explanations. It’s just enough to get the reader to see the world from a completely different point of view, like that of an atom.

Of course, being a science writer, she sometimes comes off as too much of a nerd, which may put off some of science’s n00bs. (Okay, I’m a nerd, too, so I liked her quirkiness.) At times, she goes really, REALLY far into the details, and to make those details more appetizing, she showcases a lot of annoying “do you see what I did there?” moments. She deals in excessive alliteration, such as this passage in the molecular biology chapter: “Enamel has enabled many a tooth to last posthumously into posterity.” She does this all the time, and often I did a ::facepalm:: in reaction to its lameness. Regrettably, I have to say that I would rather see those examples of wordplay than not, because for most readers (including myself) they provide mental candy to convince people to keep reading through the details to get to the really awesome parts.

The most awesome part for me was the chapter on evolutionary biology. This is where the book truly separates the science minds from the non-science minds. She has some harsh words for believers of creationism and intelligent design, quoting a scientist as saying, “You have to be diabolically blinded not to see evolution in everything that we do.” Once the reader (a sufficiently open-minded one, of course, and not a diabolically blinded one!) finishes the chapter, those words are most definitely called for. Through the evolutionary story of life in general, of horses, and of humans, Angier is able to convince anyone that evolution is no crackpot theory or “a fairy tale for grownups,” as a bumper sticker says; it is very scientific, it’s backed up by evidence, and it forms the basis for everything in biology.

Everything Natalie Angier provides in The Canon is a foundation for some scientific field, which makes it such an invaluable read. If you, n00b college student, want to learn more about science, please read this. It’ll do you good.

The Canon: It’s not for everyone

Dani Williams — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:58:38 +0000

Natalie Angier loves science. Her passion for all things physical, chemical, biological, geological, and astronomical is clear on every page of The Canon. Unfortunately, her love for quirky phrases and personal commentary negate the universality of the book’s appeal. Simply, The Canon is an interesting read, but not a “one-stop science education” for everyone, as the back cover claims.

Angier’s tour through science is all-inclusive. In a mere 264 pages, readers learn about everything from the fundamentals—probability and scales—to the science most Americans have touched on in school—physics, chemistry, evolutionary and molecular biology, geology, and astronomy. And Angier’s research is thorough. In each field, she cites the work, findings, and passion of many noted scientists.

Of course, inclusivity and thoroughness do not a good education make. After all, every textbook is thoroughly researched and includes the fundamentals. The Canon distinguishes itself from the average science primer by Angier’s unique writing style.

A chapter or two into the book, I found Angier’s writing to be fairly entertaining. She inserts pop culture references and smirking puns into at least one extra-long sentence per paragraph. And as a member of a generation that enjoys the snarkiness of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, passing references to The Love Boat, Milk Duds, and Rocky are generally chuckle-worthy. Such comments get tiresome, though, when they fully saturate every description.

Not only are Angier’s comments often distracting, they are alienating to many of those she seeks to lure into loving science.

Her witticisms frequently aim for smiles from those like Angier: the college-educated, upper middle class. I am of that group so I get the joke, but what about those who aren’t? It’s difficult to imagine my relatives in rural Arkansas, a very intelligent collection of teachers and blue-collar workers, enjoying Angier’s work.

Angier’s personal opinions all too often shine through as well, especially her scorn for the religious. Halfway through The Canon, she tells of David Wake, an evolutionary biologist who sees no problem with being a religious scientist. But her description of Wake seems like a half-hearted attempt at being open-minded.

Her neutrality towards religion is already dashed in the first chapter of the book. Just 26 pages in, Angier derides early American Christians for believing that God causes lightning. By the time she gets to Wake, she’s either bashed the heads of or scornfully silenced any science-curious Christians.

So, who is Angier’s actual target audience? It’s not the sub-upper middle class, who may be more distracted by obscure references than drawn in by them. It’s not the religious of America, who are more likely to be offended by Angier’s condemnations than persuaded by them.

The Canon’s target audience is almost exactly the crowd who would read Angier’s columns in The New York Times. Those who would like this book are those who enjoy snarky hipness and can understand complex ideas with lots of quirk thrown in. I can easily see fellow classmates from high school—now-English majors who claimed to be no good at science, yet always managed to get at least a B—loving The Canon. But do those people really qualify as “science-phobes,” that elusive group the back cover claims will love the book?

No, they don’t.

Not to seem too judgmental (or did I already lose my credibility on that count?), those who will like The Canon will gain lots of good information from it. Angier’s analogies are intelligent and enjoyable. Her descriptions, of chemistry and physics especially, are insightful and interesting. But her book works best to reawaken science-philia in those who have lost it, or to be an amusing detour for scientists weary of dry textbooks.

The Canon may claim to be a “one-stop science education,” but Natalie Angier could have better served the science community by talking more about science and less about Rocky and religion.

–Dani Williams

She Invites Us to Play, One Scientific Discipline at a Time

Megan Meyer — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:52:05 +0000

It’s no small task appealing to the masses if you aren’t a television set—especially regarding the need-to-know issues of our time. No, these issues have little to do with celebrity memoirs or scoring a mate. What Natalie Angier wants everyone to know will make for better voters, smarter consumers, and less likely targets for sensationalism in the news. In her book, The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science, she’s making science accessible to all. Even to those “6 out of every 6.0225 Americans” who claim to have flunked chemistry in high school, as Angier puts it.

Well, I didn’t flunk chemistry in high school, I flunked it college, thank you kindly. Yet somewhere between James Bond and dentist-chair hootenannies, she tricked me into understanding handfuls of concepts in chemistry that I thought were forever out of my grasp. And she made me like it.

Angier is a welcome, witty voice to those who learn best by reading stories and anecdotes. There are so many people who are absolutely terrified of mathematical notation—so much that one tiny formula, regardless of how tastefully it is inserted into text, is enough to put them off their lunch and science. For those poor souls, Angier is a good dose of Dramamine. There’s not a formula to be found, save E=mc², which has earned a green terrorist threat level amongst even the most science-phobic. Everything explainable is explainable with words. This seems to be her credo throughout the book.

Merely steering clear of jargon and mathematical notation is not enough to win over the uninitiated, however. Angier makes it fun—but fun is different for different people. She caters to interests vast and sundry. History, etymology, literature, art, music—her palette is huge.

If you are the type to be sidetracked by non-scientific queries around a subject, she reels you back in with just enough information to satisfy. Many students of letters both young and old have the compulsion of needing to know where words came from. To them, knowing a word’s root often helps with understanding how it’s used today. Angier, being a writer herself, seems to be familiar with such a craving. In her chapter on physics, she writes that the word “electron” comes from the Greek word meaning “amber”, which was considered in ancient Greece to be tears of the gods and would become easily charged when rubbed with cloth.

Additionally, she engenders science to the reader by describing ideas and phenomena from multiple perspectives. When talking to Brian Greene about what an atom might look like, she pulls out of him different ways to visualize it. One of them is easy to understand if you are already somewhat familiar with what an atom is, but another draws heavily on everyday objects and experiences to explain. It’s like a cloud or a dust bunny—those are easy to picture.

The Canon provides solid evidence that Angier is not only doing what she loves, but she knows that she’s doing something very important. Putting science into simple terms is an extremely daunting and frustrating task. It is so tempting to fall back on the jargon used by the experts because it’s easier and more efficient—that’s why experts created the jargon in the first place. But there are very real dangers present when scientific illiteracy runs rampant—from life-saving measures being put on hold to witches being burned at the stake. Angier takes on the burden of science education with unparalleled joy and playfulness—and she invites us to play along with her.

–Megan Meyer

The Canon: I would recommend this book to anyone

Maegen Ionoff — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:43:17 +0000

Natalie Angier has made it her personal mission to educate the general public on scientific issues. It’s an unfortunate truth that science is one of those things that the majority of people just don’t know a lot about…and they don’t even try to learn. The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science, anthology of various basic concepts important for understanding the larger scientific world, is Angier’s latest effort to win the public over.

Angier fondly recalls childhood days when science was not geeky or tedious, but fun and merely an exercise of curiosity about the world around us, and throughout her book, she attempts, quite successfully, to recreate that mentality, that science is fun.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist covers five scientific areas in her book — biology, chemistry, physics, geology and astronomy – and has interviewed a number of specialists in each field to provide her audiences with as well-rounded and insightful explanations of each topic as she can…without reading like a textbook.

Even though she provides a great deal of information in her book, Angier is able to continually engage her readers with her wit and sarcasm and without intimidating jargon. As a result, The Canon should prove enjoyable and readable to people of a wide range of scientific background.

One negative aspect of Angier’s writing, though, is that she tends to lose herself in her own excitement. I found on a couple of occasions that I would forget what she was talking about and have to skim back over the page just to make sense of what she had written. Regardless, I enjoy and appreciate her enthusiasm and did not find myself putting her book down because of it.

Because a cover-to-cover read may be a little too much, I especially like that the chapters are written to work independently of one another. That is, one doesn’t necessarily lead into the other. If I wanted to learn about astronomy, I could flip to the astronomy chapters of the book, ignoring calibration and biology for the time being, and easily comprehend the material without reading the other 150 pages.

The Canon is not meant to leave a reader well versed in the intricacies and details of any subject, but rather to stimulate some deeper interest in these topics or at least provide a basis.

I would recommend this book to anyone…scientist or no scientist. Angier is fun and upbeat in her writing and has an obvious passion for the subject matter. I learned a little bit from each chapter and think that any reader has something to gain from The Canon.

– Maegen Ionoff

Patrick Mundy

Patrick Mundy — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:53:21 +0000

Patrick Mundy is a senior in Cognitive Science and Psychological and Brain Sciences at Indiana University. His interests include the communication and philosophy of science, reptile care, music, and Chinese food, in that order. He aspires for the professorial life of research, teaching, and writing, a goal he hopes to achieve within the next three decades of his adult life as he meanders between creative writing, the study of psychology, and video games. For two years he served as president of IU’s Student Organization for Cognitive Science, a post from which he has retired. Patrick currently does research on optical illusions in Dr. Jason Gold’s vision lab. He squanders much of his free time writing his senior thesis, a survey of approaches to the empirical study of consciousness that he hopes one day to extend into a book. Patrick also dabbles in poetry and piano improv. Like many of his intellectual heroes, he is by his own account a connoisseur of beer, conversation, and sleep.

Links to Patrick’s articles

The Canon: Thick with fog, but still worth reading

Theresa Bradtke — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:24:13 +0000

“Science is not a rigid body of facts. It is a dynamic process of discovery. It is as alive as life itself.” — Neil Shubin

Where there is a science writing, Natalie Angier is at the forefront. In her book, The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science, she not only makes a point about the importance of science, but also about the validity of the written word.

With witty, playful sentences, interviews with teachers and scientists, and also a look into her own background, Angier suceeds in portraying the importance of science for the general, ignorant public. She does this by exploring physics, chemistry, cellular and molecular biology, geology, and astronomy, to name a few of the many sciences she covers.

While in college, Angier studied a variety of subjects from English to physics. Passionate about debunking myths and uncertainties of others, she has since expanded her resume to include a number of prestigious media — Time Inc., Discover magazine, and The New York Times, according to the Canon’s official website.

In an honest attempt, Angier strives for science enlightenment, but becomes quite muddled in her numerous attempts at witty phrases and failed jokes. Although upbeat, the muddled premise almost makes the reader want her to stop and talk as a journalist would in an actual article. The 264-page book could easily be summed up within the first chapter “Thinking Scientifically.” Within this chapter, Angier not only discusses what science is, but exactly what it is not: “Science is not a body of facts, Science is a state of mind… thinking.”

What does merit praise is the writer’s attempt to tackle not only basic concepts of science but also important and controversial issues that our society faces every day. It was exciting to think that the public might actually be made to understand the facts behind such science in the news as stem cells and evolution. Unfortunately the fluff got in the way.

Angier’s “linguistic flair” as other book reviewers call it, became almost too thick of a fog for me to finagle through. So much so that I finally had to place the book on the corner of the living room table until another time. The book would have been a success had Angier used her background in daily journalism to not only pull relevant information out of her research and her interviews, but to use it in a way that directly shows how fascinating the facts are. Instead, she bogged it down with frills.

Still, I applaud Angier’s for her work, and for her desire to take people on a tour of a very intimidating field. In spite of the weaknesses, her enthusiasm, positive spirit, and thought- provoking topics still made for an interesting read.

-Theresa Bradtke

The Canon: Romance novel meets science

Jeffrey Maitland — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:29:47 +0000

“The great [people] of science are supreme artists.” – Martin H. Fischer

Natalie Angier attempts to bring the art of writing and science together in her book The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science. She’s written the book to get the general public up to speed on the fundamentals of science, so they can better understand the articles they read in the science section of their daily newspaper.

Unfortunately, Angier falls short of connecting the art and science. In fact, her first chapter alienates part of her audience, including me, by telling a story about the time she chastised her sister for getting her kids interested in theatre and museums. Sure, science should be a very important aspect in every person’s life – but really—really? Considering her insatiable thirst for knowledge, you would think she would be happy for people who want to have a well-rounded knowledge base!
I expected more from Angier, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and science writer for the New York Times.

Angier has written what seems to me to be the romance novel of nonfiction science books. Even though there is some real substance in her book, it is overshadowed by her incessant use of – fluff. Perhaps she added the fluff to soften the blow of hard science, but she went too far. She insisted on adding overly complex analogies and anecdotes to make her point – a point that would have been much clearer if she just explained the concepts clearly and concisely.

The general concept of the book sounded great to me. It’s been a long time since I’ve been around hard sciences, and I thought it would be great to get a refresher course. She did an adequate job of explaining fundamental science concepts from a wide range of science fields such as probability, biological structures of organisms, and astronomy. But the distracting side stories made this sole strength, the only true objective of the book, lost on me. I was so annoyed and fed up with hearing personal anecdotes that I lost interest in what I was actually interested in – the science. And that’s what it’s all about, right?

To be fair to Angier, I never felt like this book was directed to me. I feel like this book was meant for an older audience that has long since lost its grade school science roots. It’s almost as if she is defending science against the nonbelievers – the people who see science articles in a periodical and brush it to the side since it’s ever changing.

I hate to end on a sour note, so maybe if you’re looking for a gift for a scientifically curious mind that also likes romance novels, this is perfect.

But if you are like me and would like to brush up on some old science concepts, do yourself a favor: Skip The Canon and pick up a good old science textbook.

–Jeff Maitland