Critique my writing, please

In the spirit of inviting folks to interact with my blog and hopefully improving my writing, I'm going to step out of my comfort zone and try something new.

Below, I've posted my first-ever official attempt at science writing that I prepared last fall as a journalism class assignment.  I'd like to invite readers to provide their critical review.  What do you like or dislike?  How is the lead? The structure? The quotes?  Does it keep your attention?  Does it provide sufficient and/or appropriate detail?  Etc. etc.

While this is partially a self-serving attempt to generate feedback, I hope the article (which wasn't published elsewhere) makes for interesting and useful reading.

But first, a little background...

The idea for this experiment struck me after reading a post by Anne Jefferson over at Highly Allochthonous (which I thoroughly enjoyed) about what scientists and journalists can learn from each other regarding how to write effectively about science for a broader, not-necessarily-expert audience.  The inspiration for her post, in turn, was the publication of two news pieces* in a recent issue of Nature that discussed two just-published studies** (in the same issue of Nature) linking a greater probability of extreme weather, specifically above-average rainfall and flooding, to anthropogenically-induced climate change.

A plea for more science coverage in local and community papers

Last week’s Isthmus (January 21, 2011) cover story, which ran under the provocative headline, “The Truth about Adult Stem Cells,” set my mind racing for the better part of an hour as I considered various arguments that swirl around the stem cell debate.  (For those that aren’t familiar with it, Isthmus is a weekly local paper in Madison, WI.)  I, like a lot of people it seems, have an opinion, albeit a murky one, on the subject. Although I have no intention of sharing it here.  I know better than to wade too quickly into a sure quagmire.  Plus, that’s not what this post is about.

After that initial hour or so the other day, my mind settled back down and I was able focus on other concerns.  But the article stuck with me.  I came back to it today, reread it, read the ensuing online commentary, and began the debate all over again in my head.

At some point, it dawned on me how effective the story had been—whether through solid writing, or because of the subject matter, or both—at holding my attention and causing me to weigh the issue.  It also got me thinking about how rare it is to find coverage of important scientific issues in local and community newspapers (i.e., circulation under about 50,000).