This is the third time I’ve surveyed the ScienceTimes, or the Tuesday science section of the New York Times. It’s one of the few free-standing science sections left in American newspapers, and is important not just for that fact, but because it’s historically employed good journalists who report on “pure” science in an interesting way—people like Carl Zimmer and Natalie Angier.
Increasingly, though, the ScienceTimes, which incorporates a “Well” subsection on human health, seems to be neglecting “pure” science in favor of articles about the health and well being of our own species. In my last two posts about the issue (here and here), I showed that only about 10% of all the section’s articles, long and short, have nothing to do with the wealth, health, and well being of Homo sapiens.
Granted, this is not a random, systematic, or long-term sample. But I did it one more time yesterday, picking up the dead-tree version of the Times. I counted all the pieces in the section, omitting only two letters to the editor, both about depression in humans. Here’s the upshot:
Total articles: 20
Articles about human-related issues: 17
Articles about “pure” science: 3
These three included a nice article by Carl Zimmer on the protozoan parasite Toxoplasma gondii, whose life cycle includes both cats (big and small) and their prey. Apparently infected prey become less wary of cats, and are thus more likely to be eaten. That, scientists speculate, is a strategy of the parasite itself, which changes the behavior of the prey it infects (e.g., rodents) to make it more likely that the parasite will be transmitted to the felid host. (Passage through a felid host is essential for the life cycle, for that’s where sexual reproduction occurs and oocysts form; see figure below.) The change in prey behavior, in other words, is an “extended phenotype” of the T. gondii genes, a phenotype evolved to help the parasite reproduce. There are intriguing experiments showing that infected chimps also become less wary of the odor of leopard urine, but not of the urine from other big cats that aren’t natural predators of chimps. (Leopards do prey on chimps in Africa.) With his usual thoroughness, Zimmer notes that scientists disagree about whether this latest observation reflects an adaptation of the parasite. You can read his story here.
The other two stories are very short: a Q&A about how dogs recognize another animal as a member of their own species, despite the variety in the appearance of dog breeds (story here), and a brief nine lines about how Verreaux’s Eagle in Africa is thriving more in agricultural areas than in wild areas, possibly because human-altered areas afford a greater variety of prey (story here).
The upshot:
Total proportion of all science stories involving “pure” (non-human) science: 3/20, or 15%.
As I said in my last post, that is PATHETIC. And if you go by percentage of lines rather than stories, the figure is even lower, for two of the three science “stories” are just a few lines long.
I’ll terminate this sample now, as I think I’ve made my point. At present, the New York Times science section is becoming a section on human health and welfare. So much the worse for good journalists like Zimmer and Angier, and also for the rest of us who occasionally like to read about species beyond our own.
I know this has really bothered our illustrious leader, but I couldn’t care less for two reasons.
First, I have lost so much respect for the NYT in general that I rarely bother to read it anymore.
Second, there are so many wonderful sources of hard science available, this is not a big deal.
I still read the NYT for national news, but I agree, there are many excellent science publications for hard science news. NYT is not one of them.
Two pure science articles are about human pets.
Yes, but they include cats.
And Carl Zimmer’s article, while interesting, is about T. gondii, which is not only a parasite of cats, but a common parasite of humans. It usually has little noticeable effect on healthy humans, but can be fatal to foetuses, infants and to the immune suppressed. So this also touches on the human health and well being theme.
The Verreaux’s Eagle story is apparently about human agricultural practices giving it a population boost. So I think even that one is as much a “yay! humans!” as it is a pure science story. It is also only one paragraph long, in the online version at least, and nearly completely lacking in detail.
That leaves 0/20 articles that weren’t anthropocentric. I think this issue was a complete wash out.
Sub
subhuman
sub
I suspect if you ask the Times editors, they would say that they do this because their readers are not interested in articles on pure science. Sadly, that may well be the case.
I’d say the same in another way: Most of the readers are interested in human health and welfare. (I almost wrote “warfare”, which of course would also be true.) Based on this, if I engage to write a popular article on “pure” science, I’d seek a human connection. “Man is the measure of all things.” If the subject is very non-human (say, chlorophyll synthesis), I’d resort to gossip about the scientists.
It is a delusion of today’s educators that they can teach as they did 35 years ago, before the world got wired. Today’s children just disconnect from what does not interest them.
“It is a delusion of today’s educators that they can teach as they did 35 years ago, before the world got wired. Today’s children just disconnect from what does not interest them.”
Fine and good if most students thus disconnect. Last I knew, 50% of all newly-minted teachers in the U.S. leave the field – “disconnect” – by the five-year-point. In one U.S. state, since 2010 the number of K-12 education graduates has decreased by 30%. And perhaps it is a delusion of policy makers and the public to think that teachers will continue to work for modest wages and deal with Philistine student behavior. Let the chips fall where they may.
I have two friends who used to work as high school teachers for years, neither does anymore :-(.
Seems that the NYT is just following the lead of the interests of NSF and other biologicsl funding agencies world wide.
I know that this is the third time you (JAC)’ve written about this, but I’m just commenting now. This has been going on for a long time. My father, a regular NYT reader even after we moved away from the NYC area, continued to subscribe by mail. When I was in college 30 (!) years ago, he would mail me the NYT science section every other week or so (several in one package). I was struck by the amount of “health” news that was masquerading in the “science” section. IMHO, the NYT’s slant in their “science” section is long-term….
On the plus side, my dad’s habit DID introduce me to the NYT crossword puzzles, which I’m still doing.