The Loom

A Letter from Stony Brook

Last night I took the ferry across Long Island Sound to spend the day in Stony Brook at Evolution 2006, the joint annual meeting of American Society of Naturalists, the Society for the Study of Evolution, and the Society of Systematic Biologists. About 1500 scientists were there, and there were enough talks going on–often simultaneously–to keep me in constant motion from eight in the morning till eleven at night.

The presentations were all over the map. In one study, scientists were pinpointing the molecular changes that Southwestern Indians have acquired to their cells as they adapted to life in the desert–adaptations that now leave them prone to obesity and diabetes. In another, scientists were measuring the cost of immunity to understand why we don’t do a better job of fighting diseases. Other researchers were building trees of life to understand the long-term patterns of evolution, such as how humans expanded out of Africa, or how animals first evolved. Others were asking broad questions–what are the limits of adaptation? Why does the course of natural selection sometimes take a tortuous path instead of a quick climb up the fittest peak?

There was a certain crackle in the air, it seemed to me, because of all the political controversy over evolution these days (nota bene: political controversy, not scientific). Many of the scientists mixed their diet of talks on speciation and adaptation with an all-day symposium today on the Dover Panda case. This was the case in which parents successfully sued their board of education for trying to introduce Intelligent Design into the classroom. The expert witnesses for the plaintiffs each gave a talk, explaining how they had put together the testimony that showed that intelligent design was repackaged creationism and had no scientific traction.

The most striking talk, for me at least, was given by Lauri Lebo, a reporter at the York Daily Record, one of the local newspapers. I became a regular reader of her work on the newspaper’s web site, and I was impressed by how she took care with both the politics and the science of the Dover case. Her newspaper might have been small, but her coverage was better than most of the stuff I saw from bigger organizations. Her talk was startlingly bereft of powerpoint slides. Instead, she spoke about her own struggle to understand the history of the conflict and the consensus of the scientific community. She talked about long conversations with pastors and her own fundamentalist father about why intelligent design appealed to them. She rejected the notion that she was nothing more than a sponge, as she put it, there to soak up information and squeeze it out. She fact-checked. She questioned. She knew that some members of the board of education were lying to her. And she drew a striking parallel between journalism and science. Journalists should not strive for objectivity as nothing but some fearful scramble for equal time. It is a sifting of evidence in search of truth.

The one fly in the ointment came from her editors. The program describes her only as “Lead local reporter at Dover.” No newspaper after her name. In fact, when Robert Pennock of Michigan State University introduced her, he said, “I can’t tell you the name of her paper.” The name of the York Daily Record did not come up in her talk. Her editors would only let her go to Stony Brook on that condition. Classy, guys.

It was a relief to leave the Dover talks and head for the evening to the poster session. Crowds of scientists snaked their way through tight passageways between walls of posters, reading about works in progress and asking endless questions. They had come from mountains in New Guinea, from Arizona deserts, from supercomputing facilities, from virology labs, all to this one place to drink cheap wine and eat pretzels and make a glorious roar about science.

Comments

  1. #1 David B. Benson
    June 27, 2006

    Carl Zimmer, please give my regards to Lauri Lebo. Thank you.

  2. #2 Abel PharmBoy
    June 28, 2006

    Carl, this is shocking about the York Daily Record not wanting to let Ms. Lebo use the affiliation with her paper. Will they be afraid of the association if she wins a Pulitzer for her reporting? I’m certain that even the Wall Street Journal would be happy to count a reporter of her qualifications among their ranks.

    Is this more common these days? Are newspapers becoming so corporate and fearful of being associated with controversy that they squelch association with great reporters? It’s not like Lauri is Ann Coulter…all of Lauri’s work is supported by scientific facts and sophisticated political analysis.

  3. #3 RPM
    June 28, 2006

    Pennock also suggested she should win the pulitzer for her work on reporting. She’s quite modest (or humble, or shy). Other than her talk, she didn’t say much of anything while on stage. I don’t think she answered a single question during the panel Q&A session.

  4. #4 jbruno
    June 30, 2006

    Good point, Abel. Thanks for the post, Carl.

    As a journalism/science student, I have concerns about the integrity of both fields right now, as politcal figures and big corporations pull on them for subjective support. It must be incredibly frustrating for someone like Lebo to deal with such resistance.

    Carl, you’re intimately tied to both realms; where are they headed, and do you think they are moving in unison, or apart?

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!