Rachel Leisemann: Science and tech writer, editor

The University of Wisconsin-Madison food science department is looking at new ways to prevent ice crystal damage in a variety of foods. Ice cream won’t get freezer burn, meat will retain its texture and other foods won’t be damaged by the freezing cycle. This damage is caused by ice crystals. When foods are exposed to variations in temperature, like when freezers are repeatedly opened and closed, ice crystals form.

UW-Madison is developing a substance that can prevent ice crystal formation. Researchers are working on a gelatin-based antifreeze, which is extracted from animal collagen. This is the same protein source that is utilized for gelatin products like Jell-O.

Other companies have developed similar substances that prevent ice crystal formation in foods like ice cream, but some people are against the genetic engineering that was involved. For example, Unilever sells ice cream that includes an antifreeze protein derived from fish. This ice cream is available in the U.S., the Philippines and Mexico; it is pending approval in Europe.

Consumers may more readily approve of the gelatin-based antifreeze from animal collagen though. The new antifreeze is created from mixing gelatin with papain, which is a natural enzyme from fruit that breaks proteins into smaller pieces. When this is mixed with ice cream, a group of gelatin proteins works to retain the smooth texture of ice cream. Studies have been done that expose the ice cream to repeated fluctuations in temperature, much like that of the average home freezer. The ice cream retains its original texture.

When this new antifreeze is added to foods like ice cream, a consumer cannot even tell it’s there. It’s tasteless and colorless. Scientists have developed it, now it just needs to win consumers’ and manufacturers’ approval.

“Sleep debt” is the difference between the amount of sleep you should get and the amount of sleep that you actually get. Sleep deprivation can affect your vision, memory and alertness throughout the day. “Can you catch up on lost sleep?”, a recent article by Scientific America, is an article that talks about the issues that sleep deprivation can cause.

It’s difficult to be able to calculate how much sleep debt a person has accrued. Different people need different amounts of sleep every night. I’m sure there’s an average ideal amount, the prescribed eight hours a night, but some people don’t need that much, some people need more. Even after knowing the right amount of sleep you need, it’s still difficult to get it. There’s school, jobs, family, etc. all pulling a person in dozens of different directions. Many people know they’re not getting the “right amount” of sleep every week night, so to make up for it, sleep extra, extra late on the weekends. This could cause similar problems to sleeping too little.

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke has a great article that explains sleep–what it is, why we need it and how it happens. One interesting part of this article is the section that asks how much sleep a person needs. The article states that this depends on a variety of factors, like age and pregnancy. The best way to determine the amount of sleep you need is to assess your level of drowsiness during the day. If you’re tired and yawning all day, get an extra hour or two of sleep. If you’re even more tired, try a little less sleep.

Sleep deprivation can be very serious and dangerous, not only for yourself, but for others around you. If you can barely keep your eyes open at the wheel or don’t remember driving the last couple of miles, pull over and take a nap. Or get more sleep every night.

I know it’s easier said than done.

To be of true service to humanity, science must be an exquisite blend of data, theory and narrative.

-Michael Shermer, in his article “The Really Hard Science” in Scientific America

In his article, Shermer argues that if you cannot tell a good story about your science and research, the science is incomplete. He says that the facts we measure or perceive must be interpreted through our own colored lenses of ideas.

I completely agree. I think that one of the main problems, other than research related issues, that researchers face is allowing their research to reach people outside of the laboratory who are not specialists in their field. Professional and peer-reviewed journals are a great source to let others explore the same realms that the laboratory is in, but by doing this alone, researchers miss out on so many opportunities for feedback from a variety of sources.

The answer to this problem is what Shermer calls “integrative science.” This is the process that weaves data, theory and narrative into one work. People need to first understand the trends in the data to be able to process it and then explain it to others. Writers are storytellers. People writing about science and technology just need to be able to help other people understand it.

I found an interesting article titled, “On being a science writer” prepared by the Association of British Science Writers here. I’m not British, but I liked it and that it summed up science tech writing pretty well: “Science writers of many types have a role to play in acting as brokers between science and the public.”

Scientists and everyone else can have their own cultures, with very little intermingling sometimes. In college, I worked in a laboratory under the direction of a brilliant researcher, but he didn’t communicate with us undergrads very well it always seemed like. We all just said he was too smart for us.

But that wasn’t it at all, he just didn’t speak to us in a language we could understand. Everyone could, with some work, understand the basics of how neurons work. For some people, a couple good lectures and some books would do the trick. For others, it would take the books, the lectures, some good tutors and time. (Maybe lots of it). But framed correctly and with language that a person understood and could relate to, that person could figure out that neurons generate and transport electrical signals to relay information throughout the body.

The article brought up another good point–that tech writers (and any good journalist) is like a sponge. We need to just soak up the information and make it meaningful to other people later on.