Maybe I’m wrong, but over the years I’ve seen the Tuesday Science Times section of the New York Times become more human-centric—dealing with issues of health and other matters affecting our species, while cutting back on coverage of “pure” science: those wonders of nature that have no clear implications for the health and wealth of H. sapiens, but increase our appreciation of the diversity of life.
Now I know that the Times does cover stuff like physics and evolution, but I read the entirety of yesterday’s science section and was dispirited to discover a very heavy coverage of human-related material. In fact, of the 20 articles (long and short) in yesterday’s Science Times, only one was about science without any human implications. That was an interesting article—on the section’s last page—about the migration of North American eels, which make a long journey to breed in the Sargasso Sea. Another piece, a very short squib about feral Australian cats, was largely pure science (the putative European origin of those cats; Greg will post about that later), but was probably published because there are gazillions of those cats and Australia is considering extirpating them because they kill wild birds. The last article was Carl Zimmer’s long piece on epigenetics, but that one dealt largely with its implications for human health and welfare.
Now the Science Times also includes a two-page “Well” section, explicitly dealing with human health, but the entire section is six pages long. My conclusion is that there’s a woeful dearth of reporting about forms of science that have no direct implication for our own species. That’s a damn shame!
The upshot: of 20 article in the whole section, 13 (2/3 × 20) shouldn’t be dealing with human health. But there was only one, the eel piece, which had no relation to humans at all but simply told an absorbing tale. Counting the 30% of Zimmer’s piece detailing studies of epigenetic changes in nonhuman animals, and the 60% of the short article dealing with the genetic origin of Aussie feral cats, there are somewhat fewer than two pieces of nonhuman science in the whole section—less than a sixth of all non-health reporting.
I’ll keep reading the Science Times to see if this is a trend or a one-off, but other science journalists have told me that they’re often urged to put a “what’s in it for us” spin on science reporting. To me that’s too anthropocentric, for we’re one of only ten million or so species on this planet, every one of which has an interesting tale. So come on, Times, beef up the non-human stuff!
Here are the three lone pieces that incorporate non-human-centric science:
“Closing in on where eels mate“ by Rachel Nuwer, whose title changed in online edition to “Closing in on where eels go to connect” (was “mate” considered too salacious?). Eels living in the rivers of North America spawn in the Sargasso Sea, thousands of miles from their river homes, and the baby eels (elvers) eventually make their way, over several years, back to their respective homes. One interesting part of the eel tale, not related by Nuwer is that two species of eels spawn in the Sargasso Sea (a gyre in the mid-Atlantic that collects seaweed): the European eel (Anguilla anguilla), and the American eel, Anguilla rostrata, They are separated not only geographically, by the homes of adults, but by six million years of evolution.
We have no idea how the adults find their way to the spawning grounds, or how juveniles of the two species find their way back to their proper homes (the Wikipedia article on eel life history is pretty good), but Nuwer’s piece describes new tagging studies showing that A. rostrata adults can move great distances when going to the spawning grounds. (A twist: the tagged eels were moved a large distance to keep them from being eaten, but headed toward the spawning grounds anyway.) It also suggests that adults use electromagnetism to find these areas. It’s a pity Nuwer didn’t even mention the similar story of the European eel, for there’s a big mystery about how these two close relatives, which live now on different continents and whose juveniles home to the right places, evolved from a common ancestor.
“Australia’s feral cats most likely European“ is a very short unattributed piece that Greg will describe soon.
“Changing up what’s passed down” by Carl Zimmer (title of online version changed to “Father’s may pass down more than just genes, study suggests”), describes recent research on environmental modifications of the genome: “epigenetic” changes that put methyl groups on DNA bases or prompt the production of “micro-RNAs” that can influence the gene expression of offspring. Zimmer recounts discoveries that things like obesity and stress in animals can alter the same traits in their offspring, and discusses some weaker evidence that this happens in humans, too. The main thrust of the piece, though, is the bearing of animal studies on human health.
Zimmer is one of our best science journalists, and writes more often about evolution and “pure” biology, so I can’t fault him for tackling this subject. But I wish he had mentioned that these epigenetic changes last at most two generations before they disappear, and so have no implication for human evolution. This would have at least been a corrective to the new book by Deepak Chopra and Rudolph Tanzi suggesting humans can affect their evolution by changing their lifestyle—though Zimmer wisely refrained from mentioning that book.
Agree about the NYT Science section on Tuesdays,tho I needed Prof C to spell it out for me. Tues has always been the day I didn’t miss the NYT due to the Science section. It needs to stay on the straight and narrow and not get distracted by merely popular stuff……
“All the news that’s fit to print” shrinks another notch. Pure science is a wasting asset for The Times Company, I suppose.
Can get tough sometimes to tell human-centric science from lifestyle news.
That Eels stuff – I Tw*eted about that back in August I think
http://sciencenordic.com/scientists-solve-riddle-eel-evolution
This is what NPR did too. The “science” news now are sociological or psychological studies. It is obvious they are trying to appeal to the non-controversial and business management.
Very true. The NYT has been on a “dumbing down” glide path for quite some time. Disappointing. My subscription is up and I’m wondering if I should renew. I will, but part of me says cut the cord.
I love that the NYT is one of very few newspapers with a dedicated Science section each week. I always look forward to Tuesday’s edition. I hope this is not a real trend, as it is one of my main sources for science that does NOT involve humans (I get plenty of that from the sources I work with). I would think with such an emphasis on the importance of STEM education, the NYT would step up coverage in those areas.
If you look at news coverage and the media more broadly, I find it stunning how little effort that is devoted to things that don’t directly involve us. Think of all the time and energy devoted to the trivial details of politics, the lives of celebrities, trivial crimes, various human interest stories etc.
The data suggest that humans are overwhelmingly narcissistic. The Science section of the NYT should strive to fight against this tendency by seeking out and explaining science that is simply interested in its own right.
This complaint is a few years’ outdated, but I still miss Olivia Judson’s weekly op-ed.
Hopefully, it is just a slow news day for non-human science. Is anyone aware of some science news the NYT should have reported and didn’t?
This is something I didn’t know: http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2015/12/cockroaches-communicate-bacteria-their-feces?utm_campaign=email-news-latest&et_rid=17052912&et_cid=141013
Interesting. It gives a whole new meaning to “shitty communication skills.”
I’m sure funding (in the broad sense) has something to do with it. More casual readers will look at articles that are immediately relevant to themselves than will check out a piece on, say, avian cognition. This bias can subtly (or not so subtly) affect health care research as well. A colleague was reporting her findings on the effects of alcohol on brain development in fetal rats at a recent seminar. She was particularly interested in how the drinking patterns of the dams affected the offspring. She had groups of rats who either self administered alcohol throughout gestation or were administered alcohol via a vapor chamber. She had investigated the effects if the developing rodents were exposed to alcohol either throughout gestation or just during the rat equivalent of the human first trimester. Another colleague asked what happened if the dams drank only during the equivalent second trimester. The presenter acknowledged that that was an interesting question but that she hadn’t investigated it because it ‘wasn’t translatable’. That is, women with an alcohol use disorder don’t typically drink only during the middle of their pregnancy, so information about rats exposed to alcohol only during the middle of fetal development are not as obviously relevant to humans.
This is ultimately about money, in this case, funding. Spending time chasing down interesting, but not immediately applicable (to humans), pieces of the puzzle. I understand the impulse. Every time I write a grant, I am careful to explain how my findings will ultimately rid humanity of some scourge, even though the primary outcomes are more likely to contribute to a basic understanding of human brain function. As my mentor always said, “First, get the money”.
Now, it has been reasonably demonstrated that investment in basic research pays off handsomely in the long run, although it’s not clear initially which avenues will yield anthropocentric fruit (I’m too lazy to look up references for this; I’m sure another and less time challenged reader can find it). Clearly, one way to ensure ongoing support for basic research funding is for the general public to be interested in the results of scientific investigation. This, of course, requires that people have an interest in the workings of the natural world and we have a finite regress to some inculcation of an appreciation for the natural world.
That, and get the Rethuglicans out of congress.
I’d bet advertising dollars play a role as big or bigger. Esp. in this day of online reading the NYT knows very well which sorts of stories draw clicks, and advertisers will want to place their ads accordingly.
It’s sad to acknowledge that the style section probably outdraws most science by, what?, maybe an order of magnitude, even?
(If you don’t count the popular “Well” articles & blog.)
Humans love humans. We don’t like light sabers because it’s just crazy ass physics to be pondered. We like them because creatures very much like us use them to create moral order in some galaxy far far away.
Medicine, biology, sociology, psychology. This is the stuff most people tend to care about most. Unfortunately the underlying science is usually irreducibly complex and is often mired with bias, distortion, and irreproducibility. Humans are attracted to all of that too.
Textbook formulas, on the other hand, are almost never tw**ted or blogged unless you count this one:
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/
It lacks a certain crispness and catchiness. I doubt it will replace E=mc^2 in the popular imagination.
cr
I appreciate the singling out, but I’d ask whether a single week of Science Times is a statistically meaningful sample.
In my own experience, my editors at the Science Times are happy to consider non-human and human topics alike. Just look at my “Matter” column web page: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/columns/matter/index.html
You’ll find human stories, but you’ll also find stories about cheese and Devonian extinctions and lots of other non-human subjects.
I didn’t do a statistical analysis, and of course a single sample doesn’t prove anything. All I said about this was that I’ve been noticing a trend–and maybe this is merely my impression–and that we should pay attention to see if it’s real. As for your own work, as I said above, most of the time you post on nonhuman stuff involving evolution and general biology, so I already know about that. And I’m sure your editors are glad to consider such topics. What worries me is the overall balance in the section, not any imbalance in your own work. Anyway, I’ll keep reading and see what happens to the section.
I was amused to see that based on the URL, the original title idea was “Parents may pass down more than just genes study suggests” for Zimmer’s online article.
I suppose it occurred to the editor that it sounded a touch too “dog bites man” that way.
In land conservation too, support is more easily obtained if human use is primary, e.g., hiking trails and access to beautiful areas, rather than protection of habitat for species disturbed or displaced by human use.