With respect to the biofuels potential of one of the few foods native to North America, Helianthus tuberosus, let me suggest an entertaining read:
The Great Jerusalem Artichoke Circus: The Buying and Selling of the Rural American Dream by JA Amato. Here's the synopsis from the publisher's website (http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/A/amato_great.html): In 1981, near the end of America's second post-World War II energy crisis, and at the onset of the nation's most recent farm crisis, American Energy Farming Systems began to sell and distribute what it deemed a "providential plant" destined to be a new and saving crop-the Jerusalem Artichoke. This volume recounts this story of the bizarre intersection of evangelical Christianity, a mythical belief in the powers of a new crop, and the depression of the U.S. farm economy in the 1980s. Enjoy! Geoff Henebry -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 11:09 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell It is interesting to see how scientific writing fits with these rules. Consider (iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active. This is certainly not the case with modern scientific writing, but it used to be - consider Newton's Principia, in which every proposition begins with "Dico" (I say). Who uses the first person today? Who would write "I measured the ..."? As for jargon, for which scientists are often blamed, it is a necessity to defend us against a hostile press and political pressure. Remember Senator Proxmire and his Golden Fleece awards to scientists who got funding for research that sounds ridiculous? Any scientist who applies for funding to study the sex lives of wasps must be crazy - but to study reproductive strategies of parasitoids of Brachonidae for biological control might get through OK. I've seen one scientist pilloried for studying the Jerusalem artichoke for biofuel, if only he had done his research on Helianthus tuberosus! Among themselves scientists don't usually abuse jargon. We refer to gelatinous zooplankton as jellies, zooplankton in general as bugs. But obscure English translations don't get used, we never refer to Pleurobrachia as "sea gooseberries". Orwell's prescriptions are more the result of his personality than of his literary skills. Some authors still write flowery or elegant prose, and carry it off well. Others write in a succinct fashion like Hemingway, and that is good too. But when the general public can only read Hemingway, we are in real trouble. Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jane Shevtsov" <jane....@gmail.com> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: domingo, 17 de Janeiro de 2010 4:57 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all > And here are Orwell's prescriptions: > > "(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you > are used to seeing in print. > (ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do. > (iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. > (iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active. > (v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if > you can think of an everyday English equivalent. > (vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright > barbarous." > > Rules 2-5 lead to precisely the kind of oversimplification of language > that you worry about. I do not know what should be done about it or > even if it really is a problem. (The case can be made that your > reading comprehension skills should match the material you are > actually likely to encounter, not more challenging material that few > people write any more.) Still, it would be interesting to find out > what our colleagues in English departments think of the situation. > > Jane
