Media Consumption 12/2/12-12/8/12

I've chosen a few things that I read or watched this week to share. I hope you'll check them out, and if you feel so inclined, share with me something that you came across this week that you enjoyed!

Cancer Pick

The Real Housewives of Chemotherapy – Suleika Jaouad in The New York Times

Jaouad writes a column for the Times called Life, Interrupted about her own experience as a young person with cancer. It is a great column, and it is really wonderful to get a patient’s voice and perspective on things. She has a great post about “battle language” Fighting Cancer and Myself that I also recommend, but I chose this video post that she did along with her friend Kristen Howard because I think it fits really well with my cancer pick from a few weeks ago about finding humor in cancer. It’s also a great Real Housewives spoof, and is really well done so what’s not to like there.

Science Pick

Physicists Bummed that Physics Is Pretty Much What They Expected – Alexis Madrigal for The Atlantic

I chose this first and foremost because I love the title. But, it is also a great little short post about how uncertain the future of physics research is because things are quite certain at the moment. Having found evidence of the Higgs Boson last summer, there isn’t a whole lot left to prove.

Writing Pick

Tips: Harnessing Social Networks For Information When You Write A Story – Khalil Cassimally onScientific American’s SA Incubator

The SA Incubator is Scientific American’s blog dedicated to new and young science writers (I’ve made a few appearances there myself) but it has a lot of information that I think is applicable to people who are in different stages of their career as well. This "tips" post has a lot of great information about how journalists can use social media sites that I think is a useful read for anyone.

Bonus Pick

Math Paper Retracted Because Some Of It “Makes No Sense Mathematically” – Ivan Oransky on Retraction Watch

Again, chosen mostly for the title. At work this week, my colleagues and I were discussing issues related to uncertainty/risk communication and how to cover scientific “failures.” The issue of paper retractions came up, and this is just one of many stunning examples that can be found on Retraction Watch – it’s a great site, and really useful for journalists trying to keep track of a story and what happens after a paper is published.

Synchrotron: The End of an Era?

I've said before that being back on a college campus offers so many unique opportunities. This week was no exception with the visit of Bill Blakemore, ABC News climate change correspondent, AND a trip to UW's Synchrotron Radiation Center. I got several opportunities to talk to Blakemore, and I highly suggest checking out his show Nature's Edge - but rather than delve into climate communication (a topic on which I could spew my opinions for hours) I want to focus on the SRC.

A cow, surrounded by nothing via Wikimedia Commons

Whenever I leave downtown Madison, I go through the same internal dialogue: "There are cows. Where am I? I don't belong here. There are cows. And nothing. As far as I can see. Cows and nothing. What am I doing in Wisconsin?" I hate to admit it, but I do still suffer from re-locaters remorse. I don't dislike Madison, but seeing prairie or open fields for miles so close to town still shocks me every time.

Today, my internal dialogue was triggered by the trip I took with my colleagues from the School of Journalism and Mass Communications, through the cows and the nothing, to tour the SRC. Located about 30 minutes from campus, the SRC is a particle accelerator that is used by hundreds of researchers each year. Now, I make no bones about the fact that I am scared of physics - but even I was able to understand and enjoy learning about what the SRC does.

The "radiation' part of the name Synchrotron Radiation Center has nothing to do with nuclear radiation, what we have all been worrying about with the Japanese earthquake. Rather, radiation refers simply to the center's main purpose - to create light for scientific experiments. If you think back to what you know about the electromagnetic spectrum, you'll remember that there are different forms of light - visible light, microwaves, radiowaves, uv rays, x-rays, etc.

The SRC conducts a variety of experiments using the different forms of light (infrared to x-ray range) that are generated by accelerating electrons around the Aladdin storage ring. I am not going to do a better job of explaining how the ring works than the SRC does on their website, but I will say that the wave of light created by winging the electrons around needs to be contained/controlled and that is essentially what Aladdin does. It is the mechanism that harnesses the light so it can be used in experiments.

Synchrotron at Daresbury Lab in the UK
Source: Wikimedia Commons

The center was opened in 1981, and has a special role as far as SRC's go because the UW center gives visiting researchers 2-3 weeks to work on their projects, unlike the 3-4 days they might get to conduct research at another facility. Because the SRC is funded by the National Science Foundation, researchers don't have to pay to use it - it is free. Free resources, that invest significant time in research projects, are rare these days.

They are about to become even rarer. The SRC at UW has not made it into the NSF's new budget, which means that funding (the approximately $5 million it takes to run the center) will be cut off in August 2011. I appreciate that the SRC isn't cutting edge. It isn't shiny and flashy, but it still has scientific merit. The idea of the resource going dark seems like such an utter waste.

My colleague Eric, who works in outreach at the SRC and organized the JSchool's visit, has a terrific post on his blog about the closing of the SRC and the closing of Chicago's Fermilab - which will leave a hole in the scientific research community in the Midwest. I encourage those of you in Madison to take the time to check out the SRC before the last electron goes shooting through the Aladdin ring, and for those of you not in Madison take a look at the federal science foundation budgets - is there a resource near you that will be lost in 2011?

The reason I chose to focus this post on the SRC rather than Blakemore's visit, is because the SRC is such a uniquely Madison, WI experience. It reminds me of why, in spite of the cows and the nothing, I came to Madison. This is the site of some extraordinary scientific research - discoveries that I find fascinating, that ignite the sense of awe and wonder about the world that I have tried so hard to cling to as I have transitioned into adulthood. Seeing the SRC's inquiries end, while sad, makes me appreciate that I was in Madison in time to experience it for myself.

Defining & Finding the Higgs Boson Particle

I know that I love on the BBC quite a bit, I make no bones about it being my preferred source for daily science news coverage. However, the article "LHC has two years to find Higgs" is an unfortunate departure from the BBC's typically stellar science coverage.

The article caught my attention because I'm already familiar with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) a particle collider operating underground along the France/Switzerland border. A particle collider takes protons (a small part of an atom), runs them around at speeds close to the speed of light, and crashes the particles into each other. Hence the name, particle (the protons) collider (the smashing them together part.)

The other part of the BBC article's title that caught my eye was "Higgs" which refers to the Higgs Boson Particle. The Higgs is a theoretical particle - meaning that it is a particle that physicists THINK exists, but they don't actually know for sure, it might not exist at all. In trying to understand the universe and what gives all matter mass, physicists have come up with several theories.

One of these theories is the Standard Model - which is based on the existence of the Higgs. If it exists the Higgs would explain how particles get mass. The LHC is looking for the Higgs by analyzing the teraelectronvolts (TeV - a measurement of energy) that would be emitted by the process through which particles get mass. The LHC should be able to detect the TeV of the Higgs - if it exists.

Part of one LHC tunnel. Source: Wikimedia Commons

I realize that the BBC's article is clearly an update piece about ongoing research, but it just glosses over some very important explanations about the LHC and the Higgs. If I didn't know that LHC was a particle collider or that the Higgs is a theoretical particle I would have no idea what this article is about from the title. Even as you go through the body of the article, there is no background information. To say that particle physics is complicated is an understatement. All the more reason why this article needs background information to make it understandable. As it is, this article is not appropriate for lay audiences.

The timely component of this article, or the reason why an update on the LHC is needed, is that researchers have announced that if the Higgs isn't detected by the end of 2012 they will conclude that the particle does not exist. If the Higgs doesn't exist then the Standard Model is not the way by which the universe is organized, meaning researchers would have to re-define their understanding of sub-atomic physics.

This is a news worthy update, however I feel like the reporter didn't do the story justice. Even the quotes do nothing to explain what LHC is, what the Higgs is, or what the significance of its existence or non-existence would be. I have a particular problem with the paragraph:
"According to Professor Tom LeCompte of the Argonne National Laboratory, US, who works at the LHC: "The most likely place for the Higgs to be is in a very good place for us to discover it in the next two years."

I have no idea what this quote means. "The most likely place for the Higgs to be is in a very good place..." What? My best guess is that the scientist is trying to say that research at LHC has progressed to the point that if the Higgs isn't detected in two more years, it doesn't exist. But obviously, that is NOT what he actually said.

This is a prime example of a quote that shouldn't have been used. Rather than just using the confusing quote the reporter could have asked the source to clarify or say what they meant in a different way. The reporter could also have paraphrased what the researcher was trying to say. Just because an intelligent and successful scientist makes a statement, doesn't mean that statement is gold. As a writer you have to decide what quotes add to the story, and what quotes are just confusing. You shouldn't put in quotes just to have quotes.

I realize that this is just a short article and it isn't trying to do an in depth analysis of the LHC, the Higgs, or particle physics, but that doesn't mean that background information and good quotes should go out the window. This topic is particularly complex and nuanced, and I've struggled to provide a decent explanation here - but just because something is hard doesn't mean you don't have to even TRY to explain it clearly.

I think the BBC article could have been a lot better if more effort was put into trying to at least define the LHC and the Higgs for the reader. After all, the reader isn't going to care that some particle might not exist if you don't explain what that particle is and why it matters.

If you want to learn more about the LHC, I can't help but recommend the following video. I still get a kick out of watching physicists try to rap and dance. You will find the explanation of the Higgs in the video far more complex than mine. Physics is out of my realm of comfortable understanding - but I gave it a shot and tried to keep it as basic as possible.

What's the Matter with Antimatter?

Now I'm not really a physics person, considering my less than stellar attempt at high school chemistry, I have never attempted a physics class, though I know enough to get by with my writing. The holy grail of physics these days in the large hadron collider (LHC) at CERN in Switzerland. This week researchers from CERN are reporting that they have successfully captured the first antimatter atom (of antihydrogen.)

This is important because antimatter is a largely unexplored field in physics. The idea is that each atom has a counter particle made of antimatter (sort of like having an evil twin) but these antimatter particles have been difficult to study because they are typically destroyed by coming into contact with their real matter counterpart. Researchers don't know why the universe is largely made of matter instead of antimatter, but with the ability to trap and study these particles, they may be able to find out.

Calculus, Zombies, World of Warcraft & Mean Girls

So after flipping out this morning about my article falling apart, I rallied myself and attended a lecture by UW's Science Writer in Residence Jennifer Ouellette. She specializes in physics as a freelancer and has written three books. Her lecture was called "Dangerous Curves: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Calculus" which was about the research that she did for her most recent book about math and how it can be applied in everyday life: "The Calculus Diaries: How Math Can Help You Lose Weight, Win in Vegas, and Survive a Zombie Apocalypse."

I had hoped that her lecture would be about what it was like to write about a subject that she has no background in (the calculus) but it was actually more about why she thinks math is cool and people should appreciate it. It was still an interesting lecture, and I give her credit for drawing an audience that merged the interests of undergrad journalism majors and graduate math students. For the record, graduate math students seem to function on an entirely different plain, and I for one do not speak graduate level math.

Ouellette did a great job of bringing in different clips and examples of how math is applicable in everyday life. She showed part of the television show Numbers (which isn't on air anymore, but is an interesting example of how to use math for dramatic crime fighting) and the mathlete competition from the movie Mean Girls, where a less controversial Lindsay Lohan realizes that it is okay to like math.

The zombie part of the title of her book has to do with a researcher who created an equation to figure out how best to survive a zombie apocalypse. Of course it is a multivariable calculus equation, which ultimately concludes that getting a gun and blowing away as many zombies as fast as you can is your best bet (although I think I could have concluded that without the calculus.)

The most interesting part of her talk for me (and the sorority girl in me does cringe to admit this) was when she starting talking about the game World of Warcraft. Apparently there was some sort of blood disease (similar to a highly contagious pandemic) that started spreading to the avatars in the game that was created by a player and started spreading rapidly through the program and the game actually had to be reset by its administrators to avoid all the characters dying of this plague-like disease. She brought it up as an example of how there can be technical models for real life situations, which actually didn't have much to do with math, but is interesting from a science-health angle.

Overall, I'm not sure how useful her talk was in terms of helping me as a science writer, but it was entertaining, it got me out of the apartment, and I got away from my frustration over my article for a little while. I think I have my article situation figured out, sometimes just scrapping an idea and starting over from scratch is the best solution. I'm now feeling optimistic, so if only my eye would stop twitching things would be back to normal.

Ouellette's blog Cocktail Party Physics is also a good example of science writing on the web, so be sure to check it out if physics is your thing.