Editor's Note

Volume Two of The Rutgers Assayist represents the continuing discussion at Rutgers University of what constitutes good science writing. The essays chosen for publication this year reflect the tensions in our workshop and in the larger field of science reporting.

For instance, although veteran science writers all recommend a position of strict neutrality in reporting a controversial issue, many of the articles we read and discussed were written by current science writers with an obvious perspective. Richard Smith decided to "bell the cat," so to speak, and contact Michael Pollan about this issue. Pollan's preference of "honesty" over objectivity sparked a heated debate over the nature of science writing; how much can one stray from an attempt at neutrality into the realm of essay or even polemic?

Patrick McGlone, who identifies himself as both an artist and technician, was compelled to write his short feature on the close relationship between theatre and technology to overcome his frustration at the continuing stereotypes of rational, important, real science as opposed to emotional, arbitrary, vague art. His overview shows how much technology is needed in order to produce an emotionally satisfying theatrical experience. The flip side of the same coin would be the extent to which science writers use language keyed in to our basic human impulses in order to explain or present complicated data. We discovered as a class that while we all respond on an instinctive level to sensory detail in writing, as Westerners in the 21st century we feel much more comfortable with the language of "doing" rather than "being." Rather than settling for the easy language of describing what something or someone does, Daneen Whinna in her interview with Horst Dieter Steklis successfully incorporates sensory language and description into a report on the status of mountain gorillas.

This use of sensory detail adds greatly to the impact of Jessica Schjott's feature story of a young mother's experience with her autistic child. Schjott's article is extraordinary in its balance of personal story with extensive research on autism, and it exemplifies the final important journalistic question we tackled in putting together this volume of The Rutgers Assayist. This spring we all watched as reporters from the New York Times and elsewhere found their credibility called into question in regards to their use of sources and the extent to which they "created" rather than reported. Although science writing has always maintained an uneasy equilibrium between creativity and non-fiction, the big issue facing us all is the question of how much material a writer can generate in order to adequately support or present specialized scientific information to the general public. No matter how extensive the scientific research or how realistically Elaine, the young mother in "Diagnosis: Autism," reflects the experience of countless parents of autistic children, she represents a compilation of several people's life stories. As such, we decided to present "Diagnosis" as short fiction based on science rather than as strict reportage.

As always, we at The Assayist welcome your comments and hope you find something to stimulate further exploration as you read through this issue.

Barbara Hamilton
August 1, 2003
New Brunswick, New Jersey