5 June 1989, The Daily Telegraph

How Linda and Sally enlightened Sir Sam

Science Editor Roger Highfield annonces the winners of the 1989 Daily Telegraph Young Science Writer Awards.

SEX AND chaos occupied the minds of some of Britain's most eminent scientists when they met in London recently. These were two among many subjects tackled by finalists in Britain's most prestigious competition of its kind, the 1989 Young Science Writer Awards, sponsored by The Daily Telegraph and the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

The winners, announced today, were Linda Dye and Sally Cowley, who will be guests at the association's annual meeting in the autumn. As a further part of their prize, they will visit the United States to attend the association's sister conference in New Orleans.

On being told she had won, Sally said she was "shocked and disbelieving", while Linda responded: "Are you kidding? Are you sure that you have the right person?" The 20 runners-up will each receive certificates of merit and subscriptions to 'New Scientist' and 'Nature', which were represented at the judging by Richard Fifield and Dr Peter Newmark respectively.

The 1989 competition was launched last November with advice from the distinguished zoologist Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene. Young scientists were invited to write on a subject of their choice in a style that would engage both the general reader and the specialist. More than 400 took up the challenge in an entry that all the judges agreed reached an even higher standard than that set last year, when the competition was introduced.

One of the judges, Sir Sam Edwards, president of the British Association, said he found the whole exercise fascinating: "And I learnt an awful lot." As science makes an increasing impact on daily life, the popularisation of science is more important than ever; yet, as Sir Walter Bodmer pointed out during the judging, a recent survey showed that one third of us still believe that the sun circles the earth, when the opposite is of course true.

AS EVER, the first stage of judging generated a wide range of views about candidates. The younger age group, aged 16-21, presented the most difficulty, with several excellent entries jostling to be short-listed. Because this group contained university and school students, age was taken into account.

Those who had tackled pure science tended to be favoured over technology oriented articles, and we preferred entrants who had displayed a journalist's initiative of conducting interviews as opposed to those who had drawn from a single reference source.

Joanne Sweeney, of Assumption Grammar School in Ballynahinch, Co Down, produced a splendid account of how scientists uncovered the mysterious disease that was killing seals. "Incredibly good," said Richard Fifield, while Sir Walter described it as remarkably well written, though perhaps pitched at too high a level.

Discussion focused on articles on a project to resurrect the genetic material of mammoths (Charles Cockell, Bristol University), the implications of the new field of chaos (Kevin Murphy, Philips Research), and the death of a star (Rosemary Tye, Wakefield Girls' High School - "very well written" commented Sir Sam and Sir Walter).

We were also treated to a description of the vital role of fungi in the rainforests by Jonathan Ingram, of Pembroke College, Oxford, and an analysis of what really happens when we ride a bicycle by Ifor Samuel, of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, one that provoked a long discussion between the judges on the balancing power of gyroscopic effects.

Also commended was an entry on geothermal energy: "a very competent piece" in Dr Newmark's view, though Sir Sam felt that so-called hot-rock projects which mine heat from the depths of the earth have had more problems than the article acknowledged. But the efforts of one of the youngest entrants, aged 17, Linda Dye of Poynton County High School in Cheshire, were to win first place for her crisp style, good subject and research in the field. The description of sex determination and the way it can be dependent on temperature "was built up well through the article", said Sir Walter, and Prof Wolff added: "I found it stimulating."

THE JUDGES felt that the finalists in the younger category were more lively than those from the 22 to 28-year-olds.

Sir David Phillips said: "There is a striking and slightly sad contrast between the very good 16 and 17-year-olds and many of the graduate students, who produce much that is dull." Often, in Dr Newmark's opinion, those who were describing their own work were handicapped because they could not see the wood for the trees.

In the older category, a breathless account of the exploits of the female Barbary macaque, which can copulate on average once every 17 minutes and with every male in her group, was one of the examples used by Paula Stockley, of Nottingham University, to investigate sexual strategies in evolution. Her piece was called The Great Egg Race, the name of a television programme Prof Wolff used to host. "I assure you it has nothing to do with the name, but I thought this was amusingly written," he said.

Dr Sarah Guthrie, of Guy's Hospital Medical School, tackled the subject of segmentation, a process in which natural building blocks are put together to make complex organs like the brain or the vertebrae. "I am a great admirer of people who can explain such difficult science," Dr Newmark said. Sir Sam liked it because he had not looked at things in that way before.

An electrifying account of lightning was delivered by Giles Harrison, of Imperial College; Dr Fathi Tarada dipped into the turbulent world of fluid dynamics, a subject rarely tackled, said Richard Fifield; Matthew Weitzman, of Oxford Polytechnic, described efforts to come up with a self-destructive virus; and Clive Oppenheimer gave a description of how satellites are being used to study volcanoes in an article Sir Sam felt was a "lot of fun".

But the judges voted Sally Cowley, 24, of the Royal College of Surgeons, the winner for a description of her research into finding a way to repair nerves in the treatment of leprosy. Prof Wolff said: "It is very well written and throws new light on what leprosy is all about." Richard Fifield found it "well organised".

At the end of the judging session, Sir Walter said he found it very encouraging that this year's improved standards had made decision-making easier, in spite of the reluctance by researchers to enthuse about their work.

On balance, Richard Fifield felt that the 1989 entries were "great fun to read".