28 June 1993, The Daily Telegraph

What you say, or how you say it?

Science Editor Roger Highfield announces the winners of the 1993 Daily Telegraph Young Science Writer Awards.

ONE JUDGE cried "Old hat!" and another snorted "Boy, did I hate that!" while yet another begged to differ: "Oh, I quite liked this one." A mixed reaction to almost every finalist in Britain's most prestigious science writing competition recurred again and again.

This year the final round of judging was gripped by the kind of intense - though good humoured - wrangling that would greet a controversial paper delivered to an elite scientific conference. It also indicated how the standard of writing that the competition yields goes on improving. Launched in an inspirational article by science writer and academic Helena Cronin, the sixth Young Science Writer Awards were again backed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science and The Daily Telegraph.

This year, however, chairing the deliberations of the nine-member panel proved to be exhausting. There was a striking lack of unanimity, as we clashed while debating style versus content, whether entries describing new science should be favoured over those that discuss textbook work, and the allure of pure science compared with black-box technology. Lewis Wolpert stressed the need to explain ideas.

"There is something specially difficult about writing about science," he said, declaring he was "totally hostile" to entries that were beautifully written but vapid. Laura Garwin underlined the importance of sugaring science for the general reader: "The challenge is to appeal to those who are not interested in science. You draw them in and along the way you teach them something." Heinz Wolff intoned how the judges should favour those who tackled more technical subjects, saying it was "a pity" that technology was not taken more seriously by the nation.

After a morning of animated discussion at the Telegraph's Docklands office, winners emerged. In the older age group first prize went to Robert Ward of Manchester University's Geology Department who described how to move a mountain, and, in the younger, Emily Beardall of St Aidan's High School, Harrogate, who investigated the "bionic ear." The winners will be presented with their Awards by Sir David Weatherall, president of the British Association, at its annual meeting at Keele University in August.

As well as having their entries published and winning £500 each, they will visit America, expenses paid, to attend the association's sister conference in San Francisco. "Wow, thanks very much!" said Emily Beardall, sounding shocked. "I can't believe it." The older prize winner, Robert Ward, said he too was "amazed" when I gave him the news. The £250 second prizewinners were an "absolutely thrilled" Harriet Coles of the Biology Department at University College London and Richard Wade-Martins of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge University, who admits to hankering after a career where science and writing meet.

The 18 other runners-up each receive £100 in cash, certificates of merit and subscriptions to 'New Scientist' and 'Nature'. This year the competition drew more entries than ever. "The standard was pretty high - even better than last year," Laura Garwin commented.

VERDICTS ON THE YOUNGER ENTRIES EARLY in the judging, one of the most popular finalists was Dan Gluckman of Cambridge University who described how animals could be turned into organ donors by genetic engineering. Unfortunately, three of the panel's scientific heavyweights - Sir David Phillips, Peter Newmark and Lewis Wolpert - were slightly confused by his description of the body's protective immune system, which is central to understanding how to outwit the mechanisms that reject implanted organs.

The clear style of Imperial College's Geraldine Yates also impressed the judges, particularly Laura Garwin. But patent protection prevented Geraldine from describing the details of a new syringe for giving daily injections to children, which violatedLewis Wolpert's mission to explain, and consigned her to the also-rans. Another entry that received widespread support was by Brenda Croskery, who tackled a project to find out why patients in intensive care are vulnerable to infections.

"A very interesting find I had not heard of," Mary Archer said. However, Brenda was overtaken by Richard Wade-Martins' article that described efforts to find out when the world will end which was voted into second place, in spite of containing a numerical slip that had a doomsday asteroid zooming Earthbound with the approach velocity of a moped. The least controversial junior entry, and overall winner of her category, was by Emily Beardall. "I am very happy with that," said Wolpert, with Dr Archer and Sir David chiming in with support.

In spite of Richard Fifield's protest that work on the bionic ear was "nothing new," the judges liked the way Emily tackled the programme to restore hearing to the deaf, enjoying a discussion of how a bionic ear actually sounds. . . . AND THE OLDER ONE OF the most liked - and controversial - entries came from Derek Gatherer of Warwick University, who gave a striking account of the search for the "perfect frog", one that would help study the process of development from egg to embryo. Laura Garwin, Peter Newmark and Mary Archer lined up in support of his quest. However, Lewis Wolpert - the influential developmental biologist who had already declared his "militant opposition" to entries with a low science content - said that the zebra fish should have been the object of Derek Gatherer's grail, not an Amazonian frog.

Older entrants provide a barometer of trendy scientific ideas and this year saw three finalists tackling the field of cell death (apoptosis): Nick Lane of the Royal Free Hospital, Jeffrey Craig of the Medical Research Council's Human Genetics Unit in Edinburgh and Harriet Coles of UCL. Each entry had its own champions, though the judges plumped for Coles. The winning entry by Robert Ward - fortunately - drew unanimous praise.

Sir David said he gave "a rather nice combination of the macro properties of mountains that went right down to the micro properties of crystals, with a degree of numeracy in it which is refreshing." Mary Archer liked its geological detective story and the pugnacious Wolpert declared how much he liked the idea of a winner who dealt with earth science. "To get over something like that is much harder than an entry dealing with biological science.