Good science writing

Well, I start my day reading New Scientist, & drinking a mug of coffee. I dread to think what the old brain would be like without that routine.

Lewontin is yet to live down his "Not in our Genes" era for me. He's not innocent of ideologically-driven science.

I used to assign parts of Biology as Ideology in my intro class. It worked really well for the frosh when we were going over intro-phil-sci stuff.

I would like to echo comment #2 in stronger terms. Lewontin's depiction of E.O. Wilson, sociobiology and evolutionary psychology is a caricature driven by his political commitments. The text cited by Professor Moran basically boils down to this: "Hey, remember, Gould and I both warned ya about spandrels!" That piece is deservedly amongst the most cited in the literature of evolutionary theory, but as far as I can see it is in itself not a refutation of adaptationist reasoning, merely a cautionary tale about speculation uncoupled from experimental test.

My vote for best science writer of the decade is for Carl Zimmer. I find his writing clearer and more memorable than Niles Eldredge's. It's a pleasure to be educated by Carl. Such smoothness and clarity is the result of painstaking work on the logic and readability of an entire work and every chapter, paragraph, sentence, and word. By comparison, most writers simply get something down on paper and poke at it a bit to make sure it's coherent. The very fact that the best writing is so easy to understand generally ensures that it's underrated.

I also enjoy Carl Zimmer's work. Andy Revkin's work is always excellent too - thoughtful and well-balanced (in the non-Fox News sense). Would that I could write as well as them.

Larry Moran has been highlighting the work of some great science writers grinding his usual anti-Dawkins axe

Fixed that for ya.