[sci.bio] British vs. American science journalism

karl@spruce.gsfc.nasa.gov (karl anderson) (05/30/91)

In article <1991May29.235507.6285@massey.ac.nz>,
A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes:

|> I regularly do a project in my Animal Behaviour classes formerly in
|> the UK and now here in NZ where I show them animal behaviour videos
|> make in various parts of the world.  Those made in the UK are
|> always ranked first and those from the USA rank poorest.  THe
|> reasons seem to be (for Brits and Kiwis that is--I have never done
|> it in the USA) that the former stick to science where as the others
|> try to evaluate animal behaviour and to put human feelings into the
|> animals' performance. 
|> 
|> Maybe Americans need that "translation" or need that emotional tug,
|> but I doubt it.
|> 

Hah!  The current issue of _Science_ contains an article titled 
"America rules the words". Excerpt:
  "...Last week, at a ceremony at the British Science Museum, Yankees
garnered top honors for the British Science Book Prize, while British
writers were told in blunt terms that they were not up to the 
standards of their colleagues across the Atlantic.
  "_Wonderful Life_, by Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay 
Gould, was declared the winner in an annual contest organized by the 
museum and the Committee on the Public Understanding of Science, a
body set up by several British science organizations..."

So there! ;^)
--
Karl A. Anderson		| Internet: karl@forest.gsfc.nasa.gov
NASA/GSFC code 923 (STX)	| voice: (301) 286-3815
Greenbelt, MD 20771		| #include "std_disclaimer"