Talk about science claims...

I drink almond milk for various reasons, among them that I think drinking dairy excessively isn't beneficial, I like the taste of the almond milk, and it's a little lower calorie than even skim milk.  (Note: I do eat other dairy and often order a cappuccino made with milk, and I generally drink my morning coffee with half-and-half, so I'm not adverse to milk or milk fat. Just in reasonable quantities.)

For me, it's primarily preference: I could drink soy milk or other dairy alternatives if it was all about being "healthy," but I think almond milk is pretty delicious and will drink it willingly and happily.

Diamond, the company who puts out this brand of almond milk, are clearly aware that some of their customers might be swayed for health reasons.  It what almost seems like parody after our discussions, Diamond has loaded the back of the carton with claim after claim after claim.  Let's look at all the buzz words: dairy-free, soy-free, lactose-free, cholesterol, and so on.  All natural! Calcium! Vitamins and minerals! REAL almonds! Low GI! Vegan!

It's almost as if they thought up every concern we have about milk and tacked it on the box and sprinkled some magic words like "all natural" and "low glycemic index" to give it a glow of health, all supported by those scientific studies we hear so much about.

How valid are these claims?  Most of them are simply marketing ploys.  Many consumers have  vague notion that vegans are healthy and that all natural and real almonds are good things, so perhaps almond milk is "healthier" than real milk.  To paraphrase on of my favorite nutritionists, Marion Nestle, food is food.  Almond milk may have nutritional advantages, but it is also heavily processed and fortified and made of more than almonds, where real milk is, well, just milk.  Drinking almond milk won't suddenly make me super fit and immune to diseases, just as drinking milk won't turn me into an overweight person who gets sick all the time.

Which is better?  That's not for me to say, but I'll keep drinking both because I can easily digest the lactose in my necessary-to-my-full-mental-functioning coffee (a science claim for another day), and I like drinking almond milk too.  But I'm on to you, Diamond, with your flashy health claims.  I'm on to you.

Summary and Outline Guidelines

Instead of just telling you what I would like to see for your blog post tomorrow, I thought I'd show you an example.  Modelling is always a good way to go, right?  (Plus, as promised, I'm posting alongside you!)

So, let's say that I'm going to write about "Broken Mirrors: A Theory of Autism" for the first paper.  What I would like you to post is a summary of your article and a brief outline.  That does not mean that this is your final outline that will be in your paper--it can be a rougher and more informal version--but I want you to start getting words down on paper so that you have a start on that first paper.  After this post, you will have a jump on your first paper assignment and will not have to dread the "blank page" syndrome faced by so many writers.  Ingenious, eh?  (I thought so).

Note how I give the authors and the title, information that may be removed from a summary in the final draft of my paper and put into the introduction instead.  Also pay attention to parenthetical citation.  The rule for citation for a summary is that if you are talking about the article in a general, global way, no need to cite, but if you use a bit of information that you can locate specifically within the article, you need to cite the page number(s).  Be sure to quote very sparingly--a summary is not the place for quotations (one or two at the very most).

All right, so here goes--feel free to interrogate, comment, and question.

My article (in MLA format.  Normally, there would be a hanging indent--the second line would be indented--but you can't do that very easily on the blog):

Ramachandran, Vilayanur and Lindsay Oberman.  "Broken Mirrors: A Theory of Autism." Scientific American Nov. 2006: 63-69.  Print.

***************************************
Summary:
In "Broken Mirrors: A Theory of Autism," Vilayanur Ramachandran and Lindsay Oberman propose that deficient mirror neurons may explain the causes of autism.  As they explain, mirror neurons help us empathize and understand other humans, and individuals with autism have trouble with these basic interactions (64).  They argue that while the other major theories seem to explain parts of the disorder, they also point out that there are gaps that must be addressed.  As they indicate, "What researchers need to identify are the brain mechanisms whose known functions match those that are disrupted in autism" (64), and for them that mechanism is mirror neurons.  To support their hypothesis, they measured the brain's mu waves in individuals with and without autism.  When a person moves her hand, for example, the mu wave is suppressed.  The mu wave is also suppressed when a normal individual observes someone else moving his or her hand; however, a person with autism has no observable suppression when observing someone else (65-7).  Ramachandran and Oberman cite this experiment and follow-up research as evidence to support their theory that autism can be explained by poorly functioning mirror neurons.  Mirror neurons do not account for all the symptoms, so the authors bring in the "salience landscape theory" as a complementary explanation.  Basically, a typical individual learns to connect cues in their environment with certain emotional and physical responses; however, individuals with autism have a skewed salience landscape that may explain why they may react in abnormal ways to what a non-autistic person perceives as trivial or not react appropriately in other situations (68-9).  Together, Ramachandran and Oberman argue that these two theories together fill in the gaps left by other theories and may help researchers better understand and treat autism.

Paper Outline:
I. Introduction
Thesis: audience for the article is an educated individual familiar with conventions in scientific and academic writing who is interested in science but not necessarily a scientist or science professional

II. Body
     A. Argumentative strategies used by the authors
          1.  Counterargument
          2.  Elements used in scientific writing
               a.) Multiple studies
               b.) methodology and repeatability
     B. Style and tone
          1. "Couched" language: uses of might, may, could, etc.
          2.  Informal language

III. Conclusion

**************************************
As you see, the summary and outline will help you get started with the paper. If you don't have as detailed  of an outline as mine, at least list some of the features/elements you think you might like to examine, and bring any questions you have about what would be "good points" to class tomorrow. Your thesis can just be a general statement--it doesn't have to be (and probably shouldn't be) your actual thesis statement. Have fun and good luck!  (Remember to post the blog by class time--I plan to read and respond to them right after class so that you can start working on your rough draft for Monday).

Some cool sites

I think it's interesting and fun to keep up with various blogs.  If you're a science major, blogs can help you stay informed of new developments in science, ongoing issues, and news developments, and if you're not a science major, it can help you be a knowledgeable citizen.

Here are a couple of sites I've encountered that you might enjoy:

PLoS (Public Library of Science): Not a blog, but a useful resource.  Check it out!

PLoS Blogs Network: A whole bunch of interesting blogs that are vetted and written by reliable writers.  They have specific blogs for whatever interests you.

Scientific American Blogs: Also a series of blogs to browse.  Scientific American is a good publication to look at for articles and information on general topics--and it's generally accessible, but well written and reputable.

Popular Science: It's another science publication for a general, non-specialist audience.  And they have an iPhone app so you can read it on the go!  It's got lots of fun articles and interesting posts, so check it out.

I hope you'll also start paying attention to the news and the ways they portray science.  Sometimes they get it wrong, but if you're not reading critically, you'll never know.  I listen to NPR and read the NY Times, and I try to listen and take note when they bring up science.  It's a fun habit to have, and I stay well-informed, even if my specialization is writing, not science.  Knowledge is power, after all, and who doesn't want to have a little power?

EDITED TO ADD:

I'm a fan of both NPR (npr.org) and The New York Times (nytimes.com) as news sources--they tend to be reasonably reliable (remember, though, they are never completely without bias, so always be on the guard).  So I thought I'd include a few more links:

NPR Science: A good page to check into every now and then to read news stories NPR reports on.

New York Times Science: Check for recent news reports on scientific advances, etc.

My Goals (2012 Style)

Smell that?  It's spring.  Well, it's the spring semester, anyway, and I'm almost certain that there will be one giant snowstorm before spring really begins. My point is, that it's a new year (2012), a new semester, and a new chance to be an awesome teacher.  It's also a chance to re-teach a class I taught last semester, working out the problematic pieces and making it a stronger course on science writing.

You, my dear students, have the benefit of taking a class on its second iteration.  While it was pretty good last semester--I had fun teaching it, at least--I am excited for the opportunity to teach it again to improve and refine my lessons.  So my first goal for this semester is to build on what I learned from teaching last semester and develop a strong course that I can teach again and again.

Since I'm also an academic (and that means I have to publish things), I also plan to submit this course to a journal for publication.  That's my second goal: now that I've worked out some of the problematic bits an have refined the course, I hope to get the ideas published so that others want to teach science writing.

But my primary goal remains the same from last semester: help you, my students, learn how to write as scientists, understand how language is vital to scientific activity, and give you an opportunity to explore, research, and write about a topic that interests you.  The overall goal is to contribute to your growth as writers, to set you on the path to being skilled users of language in whatever setting you encounter.  It's going to be a great semester!

The Science of Running

About 8 years ago, I took up running as a way to maintain a healthy weight.  However, it quickly took a turn from mere exercise to a genuine passion in my life.  I love to run; in fact, I signed up for the Winslow Half-Marathon on September 17, and I plan to run a marathon in December.

Since I'm so interested in running and science, I pay attention when I run across an article that blends the two.  Claudia Dreifus's article, "Born, and Evolved, to Run" (New York Times, 22 Aug 2011)* particularly caught my eye because she discusses the barefoot running movement, a trend that I am part of.**

Dreifus interviewed Daniel Lieberman, a Harvard researcher who has studied "how the human head and foot have evolved over millenniums".  Lieberman is a scientist cited in Christopher McDougall's Born to Run, a book about how and why humans are running animals, which I've read, so I was excited to learn more about the research that McDougall cited.  His research has evidence to support a couple of assertions: 1.) human beings are evolved to run because we have a stabilizing structure in our neck that allows us to hold our neck still and 2.) barefoot running may be shown to be better overall for the body and injury prevention because modern shoes alter footstrikes.

Lieberman also discusses applications of his research for people looking to be healthier by returning to a pre-modern way of eating and running to future doctors.  I find his research an interesting glimpse into how we evolved and why runners can develop injuries because of the interference of modern technology.

Dreifus' piece is clearly intended for those curious about the barefoot running movement (or runners, more generally); the title will immediately grab the attention of those who are curious about running.  Most of her interview questions involved running and barefoot/minimalist running in some way; she knows about the rising tread of minimalist shoes, such as the Vibram FiveFingers and the NB Minimus, so her audience is seeking scientific validation to support the trend.  While there are certainly critics of the barefoot running trend, Dreifus is not interested in exploring the controversy at all; her article overwhelmingly offers support for barefoot running style and no attention is paid to some of the drawbacks.***

Overall, I thought the piece was interesting, and I enjoyed learning some more about the research and science behind my preferred running style.  Now, off to my 13-mile training run!


*Be sure to cite your articles, even if it is as informal as giving the link, the author's name, and the article title.  It's a good habit to be in to always cite!

**I have run in the Vibram FiveFinger shoes and now the New Balance Minimus, and I have to say I really prefer the minimal shoes over clunky heavy shoes.  However, this is not a post about my running shoes choices, so if you're interested in my opinions about the shoes, pester me after class or in the comments.

***Some folks have problems due to habit, biomechanics, fitness level, and other factors.  No one should jump into a pair of minimalist shoes or start running barefoot without first transitioning slowly and carefully.

Caveat Emptor!

Long ago, before the establishment of the FDA, the attitude in American business was caveat emptor, a fancy Latin term for "let the buyer beware."  You see, the attitude was that if a consumer was dumb enough to buy goat droppings in a bottle, then that was their problem.  So you  had lots of folks moving around the country selling quack medicines and remedies to unsuspecting individuals who weren't educated or didn't know how to discern from the truly helpful herbal remedies passed down by grandmas and non-professional doctors and the crazy, dangerous remedies marketed by "snake-oil salesmen". (If you've ever heard that term).  The FDA was strengthened under one Teddy Roosevelt* and began changing this attitude toward believing that the American public needed the government to look out for it.

This is what I was thinking about as I read through "106 Science Claims and a Truckful of Baloney" before class on Monday.  If you've gotten a good sense of my personality, I seem like a fairly easy-going woman, likely reasonable and perhaps trusting.  You'd be wrong on the last part: I'm deeply suspicious of institutions and companies and corporations or anyone whose primary goal is to make a buck.

Many of you commented on your blogs that you couldn't quite believe that companies could get away from selling swill to an unsuspecting public.  Well...not to get too political, but the general environment of deregulation beginning with Reagan took much of the FDAs power to regulate and enforce.  They can require labels and disclaimers, but it takes background knowledge and awareness to understand what those things mean, as our author pointed out in his article.

So, in effect we've moved back toward that attitude of caveat emptor.  I firmly believe that one of my roles as instructor of the class is to help you understand the ways science and the public interact, and this is a major locus with severe consequences for the unknowing and uninitiated.  Remember that interesting statistic--90% of Americans are interested in science but 15% feel that they have knowledge about it?  Well, those 85% who don't know anything are the ones being duped, and they are the ones who need--and deserve--protection.

My questions are: how do we better educate the American public?  How do we convince our legislators that regulation is not the enemy of business, but a powerful tool to protect the American public and prevent individuals from harming themselves or their health? (Or wasting their hard-earned money on crap).

Keep your eyes open and as The Who would advise: don't get fooled (again).**

*Former President, Rough Rider, and an all-around badass.  Seriously.  Dude shot big game and ran a country and wrote books and fought in wars. He also was responsible for our national parks.  Check out his Wikipedia page if you want to learn more tidbits and random facts.

**T. Roosevelt would advise, "Walk softly and carry a big stick."

Science is EVERYWHERE

I'll post my thoughts about the article, but I wanted to discuss a tangentially related point--science (and science claims) are all around you.  I'm interested in science and scientific arguments, so I'm always listening and paying attention, and you should try to tune your mind and eye and ear to pay attention as well.

One example: this morning as I was listening to NPR, a story came on about learning styles.  I grew up with this idea that I learn in a particular way--am I better at auditory or visual tasks? for example.  It turns out that the science this idea is based on is problematic.  I liked the quotation from one of the scientists interviewed, that anytime someone proposes the idea that there are fundamental differences to the brain, that is problematic.  (We'll discuss this idea later in the semester).

The general idea is that we have particular strengths, but that good instruction will ask students to learn in different kinds of ways and switch up the teaching style to keep everyone engaged and interested.  At the end of the day, what allows kids to learn better is simply keeping their attention on a topic or task.

Now I feel a lot better about never being able to understand what my learning style is--it turns out, I use them all, and hopefully I can use them all as we learn together.