Let me start by agreeing with Lawrence Rudnick's posted arguments
for strong local reporter coverage of science issues and dedicated
space in the paper for science news.
The correct date for the editorial he referenced is Dec. 8. I'd
like to make the point that none of the articles he cites in noting
the richness of scientific coverage by other daily newspapers all
appeared in any one of those publications. In other words, all papers
make editorial judgments about what stories they pursue and print,
balancing space available against a endless oversupply of stories with
which to fill that space. I've been as critical internally as many of
you have been in this space in questioning the priorities demonstrated
by some of those decisions.
Since Mr. Rudnick's letter to the editor was undated, I'm not
certain which Monday he searched the paper in vain for science
articles. But a search of last Monday's paper using scien* to include
wild cards found 10 articles. Throw out incidental references and
there's still a 50-inch staff-written 1A article examining health
concerns raised by platinum leaking into women's bodies from implants,
a business section staff-written cover article about career conditions
in the high-tech industry, and a Boston Globe article about
adevantages in computer chip technology. Maybe it's not pure science,
but I suspect most lay readers care more about applied science.
Yours in scientific illiteracy,
Steve Brandt
StarTrib
