1 Sept 1999, The Daily Telegraph

Writers buzzing with great ideas

The Daily Telegraph BASF Young Science Writer Awards produced some excellent entries - with the girls on top, says Roger Highfield

GIANT scorpions, oafish elephants and a napping platypus were among the characters that featured in the most prestigious science writing competition for young people, the winners of which are announced today. While last year saw the first all-male list of winners, this year women fought back, winning in both the older and younger categories. ''It really is a display of girl power,'' commented one of the judges: perhaps science will one day explain why women have dominated the competition during the dozen years it has run.

Backed by the chemical company BASF and The Daily Telegraph, with the support of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the latest competition was launched by the Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees. To select the best from the 400 plus entries, I could rely on a wide range of expertise, from Dr Laura Garwin, physical sciences editor of 'Nature', to the doyenne of science popularisers, Prof Lewis Wolpert. Two new judges added their talents: Glenwyn Benson the BBC's head of science, and John Hampton of BASF.

The judges had to balance various factors, from the originality and intrinsic difficulty of the subject matter to the reliability of sources. Style, diligent research and meaty substance were rewarded. The initial screening left 60 entries in each category, which were divided up and distributed to pairs of judges.

Each nominated their top three to produce a shortlist. Then nominations were made, discussed and refined by the panel. I launched the process with my own selections. As ever, my choice was greeted with a mutter of dissent from Prof Wolpert and a cry from Dr Garwin that she had already made a tactical switch to ''put more names in the hat''. This year saw a great deal of skilled writing and journalistic nous among the entries.

Overall, John Hampton and his fellow judges were impressed by the way that tough subjects were popularised, bringing a wide range of science into sharp focus.

Older entrants
After the first sift, the judging panel was split. Two promising entries on artificial hands divided the panel. Then came a dispute over whether the Global Positioning System could help blind people get about. The military had fiddled with the satellite navigation system so that its positions were too inaccurate for the job, argued Prof Wolpert.

But this inaccuracy can be overcome with a technique called differential GPS, argued Mary Archer. ''I use it when I sail. It is brilliant,'' she said. After more discussion, Elaine Hendry's GPS entry remained on the shortlist, along with Myles McLeod on ancient sea scorpions, Lana Israel's piece on memory distortions, James Gordon's elephant vandals, and others.

As we rummaged through the shortlist, Lynn Dicks' epic on decision-making by bees quickly established an early lead and triggered a discussion over whether the judges could also learn something from the hive's democratic waggle dance. The ''buzz'' gave her first place.
The fight over second place was between Mary Berrington on the role in childbirth of the molecule nitric oxide and Andrea Lord on how to farm chickens with compassion.

Prof Heinz Wolff was impressed by Berrington, a ''very human story,'' adding that he was unconvinced by Lord's measure of a happy chicken, which used a bio-chemical marker. Glenwyn Benson felt slightly cheated at the end of Lord's piece because it was inconclusive. This, it must be said, is often the case when it comes to contestants who describe their own, unfinished, research. But the quest to get inside a chicken's mind was fascinating and, ultimately, made it into second place. Dr Peter Briggs, among others, felt that, given the recent food scares, ''the chicken story is very topical''

Younger entrants
The standard of this category was high, indeed so high that Dr Briggs felt it was ''very much more difficult'' to judge. As a result, the judges were tougher. The link between the enzyme telomerase and ageing was a case in point. Was the link really proven? No, was the feeling of Prof Wolpert, though the panel thought he expected too much of Victoria Evans, who described the research.

Equally, it is important for entries to avoid jargon. Prof Wolpert thought a piece on the testing of combinations of metals for catalysts too technical, although Dr Archer found it ''amazingly impressive'' because the author, Angela Saini, had tracked down the leading light in the field.
The longest discussion during this phase of the judging focused on the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI). Lizzie Kelsey, 16, of Lancaster Girls' Grammar School, described a project that has since seen a million people download software to harness idle computers to search for ET.

But did she understand SETI? asked Prof Wolff. The search was not for messages but the overspill of a civilisation. ''EastEnders is now winging its way across the cosmos, with the hum of our grid wires,'' he said. ''These are not messages sent on purpose but the consequences of technology. This does not come across at all.'' At worst, her entry was ambiguous - it remained on the shortlist.

A dozen entries made it through the first round, led by Suraje Dessai, Elizabeth Tasker and Andrew Fielding. Then came more detailed critiques. Dr Garwin was worried about whether Dessai's article on the use of iron to fertilise the oceans - and soak up greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the process - had done enough to explain to an uninformed reader. The opposite was true of Fielding, argued Dr David Concar. ''There is no science,'' he said. ''Just a piece about general garden knowledge really.'' But Prof Wolpert felt that it counted as ecology and Glenwyn Benson liked Fielding's sober style: most of the panel felt it told us something new about the environmental effects of golf courses. The judges took interest in Elizabeth Tasker's epic on conducting polymers. Her introduction was lively, though did not quite hit the mark for some. Dr Archer felt that some features of it could have been clearer. ''I thought she made it interesting and wrote it in a lively fashion,'' countered Garwin. Glenwyn Benson gave the backhanded compliment that she stayed with it longer than she normally would with chemistry, a tough subject to popularise. In the end, we had to compare a hard subject tackled in an effervescent style with a fun article with little hard science and an intriguing piece marred by jargon. After a vote, Tasker carried off the prize.

Impressions:
Of all the discussions, the Internet dominated. On the plus side, said Dr Peter Briggs, many entrants had exchanged emails with leading scientists, showing how it provides unprecedented access to expertise across the planet. On the downside, the temptation to plagiarise is greater than ever, with the Tomorrow's World website being particularly attractive.

Some entrants did little more than edit press releases. ''With so much information on the Web, how do you add value to it?'' asked Dr Concar. Reporting a project in a straightforward way ''is no longer going to do it.'' Ethical implications, comment, and interpretation are vital.