I’m sometimes asked who my favorite science writers are. I don’t like science writers per se; I like science writing, or rather some science writing–the passages and chapters and books that remind me just how good science writing can get, just how high above the wasteland of hackery, dishonest simplification, and cliches it can rise. This morning by chance I stumbled across a recording from 1996 of John McPhee reading one of those passages (he reads from one of his geology books at about 6:20). It has the added bonus of an explanation far more clear than I could offer as to why an English major would wind up as a science writer.

Continue reading “A Reminder of What Science Writing Can Be” →

Matthew Chapman, writer and producer, writes an op-ed calling for presidential candidates to have a debate on scientific issues. It’s an entirely reasonable piece, but if you stop to think about it, its publication raises two disturbing questions–

1. Why should anyone have to plead for science to be a topic of discussion among presidential candidates?

2. Why did I find this piece on the Washington Post web site filed under a tab called “On Faith”–a section dedicated to religion?

Continue reading “It’s Come To This?” →

It appears that I didn’t receive a single new science tattoo this week! Could it really be that on the entire planet, there are only 81 people passionate enough about their science to go under the needle? If so, thanks to everyone for a fascinating experiment. If not…keep them coming. 

Originally published October 26, 2007. Copyright 2007 Carl Zimmer.

Ugh. Several days, pretty much day and night, going over the copy-edited Microcosm manuscript with a green pencil. I haven’t had any time to write any original blog posts–or even reply to most of my email. But I can at least point you to three articles of mine that went online while I was buried deep in dangling participles. Looking at them now, I see a common theme: comparison.

Continue reading “Green Pencils, Sleeping Birds, and Aging Possums” →