Spend a few hours with a pile of scientific journals, and you will quickly see why many people become scientists instead of writers–because they couldn't write a clear, jargon-free sentence if their grants depended on it (and sometimes they do).
Laurence Steinberg is not one of those. He became a scientist even though, on the basis of his opinion piece in Sunday's New York Times, he could easily have been a writer. (Why he turned to the dark side, we might never know.)
For starters, I loved the lede, which left me absolutely no choice but to read on:
I'm not sure whether it’s a badge of honor or a mark of shame, but a paper I published a few years ago is now ranked No. 8 on a list of studies that other psychologists would most like to see replicated. Good news: People find the research interesting. Bad news: They don’t believe it.
The study has to do with peer pressure, and whether a teenager will act more recklessly when other teenagers are present than when alone–even if the others don't encourage risky behavior.
It's a nice story, and judging by the abrupt ending, it was probably longer–and maybe better–when Steinberg turned it in.
And here's a tip: A link in the story points to the list of top-20 psychological studies that deserve to be replicated. This seems to be an unscientific sampling, but I'm noting it because it could be a great source of story ideas for reporters. One of the studies found that writing a paragraph on values improves academic achievement during the subsequent year. Another found that eating radishes instead of chocolate cookies encouraged subjects to give up sooner on unsolvable problems.
Some of these sound foolish, and some are intriguing. And many seem ripe for a journalistic investigation.
Chocolate cookie, anyone?
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply