15 July 1991, The Daily Telegraph

Beating the jargon of the lab

Roger Highfield announces the winners of the Young Science Writer Awards for 1991.

THE MECHANICS of how cows chew the cud and why red wine can cause throbbing migraine diverted some of Britain's most eminent scientists during the judging of the prestigious Young Science Writer Awards for 1991. Sponsored by the British Association for the Advancement of Science and The Daily Telegraph, this year's competition drew a record number of entries on an exhaustive range of subjects.

There were also two departures from tradition: many more lavish cash prizes; and good humoured discussion which raged even before all the judges had gathered to make the final selection. Sir David Phillips, the Government's leading science adviser, and Prof Lewis Wolpert, a London University biologist, exchanged animated views on the dismal state of science funding. Today we announce the winners: Francesca Happe, 24, and Dorothy Clyde, 17, who will be guests at the British Association's annual scientific jamboree in Plymouth this August.

Each also receives £500 and will visit the United States to attend the association's sister conference in Chicago. Francesca Happe's entry gives a striking introduction to the world of the autistic child. Francesca, who works at the Medical Research Council's Cognitive Development Unit in London, said: "It is terrific news." Dorothy Clyde won unanimous praise for the clear way she took the reader from the discovery of the underlying cause of a hereditary disease to the prospect of treatment.

Having been immersed in studying for A-levels at Ballymena Academy in County Antrim, Dorothy said she was stunned when told she had won. The second-prize winners will be Awarded £250 and an invitation to the British Association meeting, while the 18 runners-up will each receive a certificate of merit, £100 and subscriptions to 'Nature' and 'New Scientist'. VERDICTS ON THE YOUNGER ENTRIES LEWIS WOLPERT summed up the judges' approach when he said he was looking for articles that were neither gushy nor difficult. "Clear writing is what impresses," he said. "Journalism is harder than you might think."

Appropriately, we favoured entrants who employed supporting anecdote or journalistic initiative rather than drawing from a single source. We were struck by the overwhelming number on biological and medical subjects - an imbalance, Dr Mary Archer believes, that may be "symptomatic of the crisis in physics".

Each judge nominated the best articles among the 30 finalists in each age group. The enthusiasm of the younger group inspired Richard Fifield; Peter Newmark said he, too, was encouraged by the standard. Sir David, however, wondered how much of a hand parents and teachers may have had. Every finalist showed a particular strength.

Sir David liked the clean structured approach of an article on harnessing tidal energy, by Victoria Stewart of Assumption Grammar School in Ballynahinch, Northern Ireland. Barry Smith of King's College, London, tackled buckyballs - a new form of carbon consisting of football-shaped molecules - and was praised by Mary Archer for his discussion of the techniques used to study the structure of the molecules, which are of intense interest to researchers worldwide.

The judges saw two finalists discussing the battle between the cuckoo and its unfortunate hosts: Tom Tregenza and Sanjida O'Connell, both of Bristol University. Peter Newmark felt that, though entertaining, both should have explained how the researchers came up with their insights into this evolutionary arms race.

Sumit Paul-Choudhury of Imperial College won the admiration of the judges for tackling one of the more opaque hard sciences - how a vacuum seethes with activity, according to quantum theory. Heinz Wolff was entranced by the idea of the not-so-empty vacuum. Another article that dealt with an original subject came from Catherine Botham of Liverpool Polytechnic.

She described studies on a jelly-like creature, called a hydra, as an alternative to the use of animals in research. The discovery of the role of the simple molecule nitric oxide in the way we feel pain, and how it could lead to new pain-killers, stirred discussion of the entry from Grazyna Kunikowska, of King's College, London, who was praised for tackling an exciting area of research. The second-prize winner, discussing the use of semi-conductor detectors in amateur astronomy, was written by Richard Wilman, 16, of North Halifax High School.

In spite of a few flaws, Peter Newmark praised his efforts for being clear, lively and informative. The outright winner was Dorothy Clyde's entry describing the latest work on cystic fibrosis. Published on this page, it won plaudits from all the udges. . . . AND THE OLDER SIR DAVID PHILLIPS feels that post-graduates and academic supervisors should pay more attention to giving a clear description of their research when justifying it to funding bodies, not to mention explaining it to the general public.

Yet research students are pressed to present their thesis work in "a stylised non-journalistic form". They must fight such indoctrination, he said. None the less, he felt that "the senior group came through rather well".

Richard Fifield concurred: "It is a good experience for the older group who are probably writing for a general audience for the first time. It is a challenge to accept that most readers will not understand scientific jargon and to avoid it while you write." Some entries were well written but vacuous. Many contained pungent science presented without much thought for the general reader.

The efforts of any practising journalists who entered had to reach very high standards.The judges liked the urgency of one article on the potential health risks of stubble burning, written by Peter Walsh of the University of East Anglia But we felt it was slightly overdone and wanted to hear more on the link between the dioxins released by burning and health effects.

Research into the migraine-inducing effects of red wine due to impurities was described by Dr Joan Jarman of Kingston Polytechnic, who made the puzzling discovery that many people cannot distinguish chilled red wine from chilled vodka. Her entry had many supporters, but Peter Newmark criticised the experiments conducted in the work: "They were interesting, but did not hang together."

Tin can misbehave at low temperatures so that organ pipes crumble and buttons disintegrate. The explanation of why, by Dmitrii Styrkas of Oxford University, prompted an instant tutorial from Sir David on the phenomenon, a sure sign of interest in a judge.

The entry of Wendy Wright of Reading University, discussing the mechanics of chewing the cud, was "very sweet", Lewis Wolpert said. Sir David liked its unusual insights into the everyday and for the way it reached a neat conclusion: perhaps it may be possible to design plants that can be eaten by cows but not by locusts.

Wendy's entry was only just beaten to second place by the style of Alison Henwood's "A bee in a time machine", which described her work at Cambridge University on a 40 million-year-old bee trapped in amber.

Lewis Wolpert was concerned that the style overwhelmed the substance: "Once you have the title, what more do you need to know?" But he was over-ruled by the other judges. Heinz Wolff said that the discovery of the 40 million-year-old bee engendered a feeling of awe in the reader.

The big prize, however, went to an article that we felt best combined style with science. It is published below. As soon as Francesca Happe was nominated as the overall winner, the entire panel chorused approval. "Extremely well written," Sir David said.