[The Lone Ranger]

I've been contacted by local newspapers for comment on biology-related issues on a couple of occasions. I was never impressed with the results.

On one such occasion, the reporter asked me to explain something (about Mayfly biology) "as simply as possible." I did as he asked. He replied, "You've got to understand that the average newspaper reader* isn't going to understand what you just said. Can you dumb it down a bit?" [Yes, he actually used the words "dumb it down."]

I told him, "no, not while maintaining any can kind of accuracy; there's only so much that you can dumb down a concept before it becomes dishonesty." [To paraphrase Einstein, "The goal of good science is to simplify our explanations as much as possible -- but no further."]


What they eventually printed bore only a passing resemblance to what I'd expended a good deal of time patiently explaining to the reporter. And was oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy, in my opinion.

*I strongly suspect that he wanted me to "dumb it down" for his sake as much as for that of the average reader.



A year or so later, the same reporter (he was the "Science Reporter" for the local newspaper) showed up to report on an "Environment Camp" that several members of the Biology Department were hosting for local high school students at a state park. (We taught them how to identify various plants and animals, do water-quality surveys, construct population viability analyses, etc.)

I wasn't mean about it, I hope, but I couldn't quite resist pointing out that there had been a number of ... inaccuracies ... in the most recent article that he'd published.

It's probably notable that he was also the "Sports Reporter" for the paper. It was my distinct impression that he was vastly more knowledgable about football and basketball than about science-related matters.