Fuzz: When Nature Breaks the Law

Scientific thinkers from ancient civilizations often wrote down and shared their ideas and findings with others, who also shared their writings. This practice allowed scientific thought to be preserved, as many original documents were destroyed but the copies survived. As centuries passed and scientific methods became more refined, writing about science split into two distinct types: scientific writing and science writing. Scientific writing includes research and theories written by scientists and is intended to be read by other scientists. Nature, Science, and the New England Journal of Medicine are examples of peer-reviewed publications of scientific writing. Science writing, on the other hand, may or may not be written by scientists and is intended for a broader audience. Popular science writing may discuss scientific research and methodology, but it is told in a more journalistic or narrative style, using language that is more accessible to a non-scientific audience. The narrative type is considered creative nonfiction; factual, nonfiction works that employ some literary devices used in fiction.

Mary Roach is not a scientist but a writer. Her books, including Fuzz, fall into the popular science category. Unlike straight journalism, in which the author usually stays out of the story itself, Roach includes herself in her stories. The reader follows along as Roach learns about various technical or scientific endeavors. Thus, she infuses her works with her personal voice, observations, and opinions. This type of writing allows the author to use emotional appeals or humor to address their audience. For example, in discussing the use of castor beans as a deadly toxin, Roach writes, “Unless death by diarrhea and dehydration is the intent, castor oil is a useless murder weapon” (155). The humor and irony throughout the book, especially in the first chapter about deadly animal attacks, make a gory, upsetting topic more palatable for readers who might otherwise be too disturbed to continue reading. The general public may find journalistic or scientific writing about bird strikes or falling trees uninteresting, but Roach’s voice and style present the human subjects as developed characters who are engaged in meaningful or bizarre campaigns. She raises also questions about the larger significance of what she observes and poses philosophical questions to the reader, encouraging readers to examine their opinions and biases.

While popular science writing can be engaging and introduce non-scientific audiences to a wide range of topics, readers should take the science presented with a note of caution. In many cases, the writers are not subject-matter experts and may make erroneous assumptions about the findings or misunderstand or misrepresent the data. Ideally, articles and books of science writing will contain a list of citations that readers can follow up with to see the source material. Misinformation from popular science writing reaches a wider audience than scientific studies, and incorrect or inaccurate beliefs can become widespread. Roach touches on the issue of inaccurate reporting in Fuzz when she peruses the articles in Indian newspapers about monkey attacks. She states, “Delhi has more dog bites than monkey bites, and the dogs, unlike the monkeys, carry a respectable threat of rabies. But dog attacks don’t sell newspapers the way monkey attacks do” (108). In another anecdote, a paper reports that monkeys stoned a man to death, but in another, the victim was sleeping near an unstable wall when the monkeys jumped on it, causing the bricks to fall. These episodes encourage readers to maintain a critical eye when reading about science through secondary or tertiary sources.