Publication: Wide adaptation of green revolution wheat

I recently co-edited a journal section with a colleague from ASU. The journal alerted me that my article is available for free for one month, so you can download it via this link until May.

Abstract:

Indian wheat cultivation changed radically in the 1960s due to new technologies and policy reforms introduced during the Green Revolution, and farmers' adoption of ‘packages’ of modern seeds, fertilizer, and irrigation. Just prior to the Green Revolution, Indian scientists adopted a new plant breeding philosophy—that varieties should have as wide an adaptation as possible, meaning high and stable yields across different environments. But scientists also argued that wide adaptation could be achieved by selecting only plants that did well in high fertility and irrigated environments. Scientists claimed that widely adapted varieties still produce high yields in marginal areas. Many people have criticized the Green Revolution for its unequal spread of benefits, but none of these critiques address wide adaptation—the core tenant held by Indian agricultural scientists to justify their focus on highly productive land while ignoring marginal or rainfed agriculture. This paper also describes Norman Borlaug's and the Rockefeller Foundation's research program in wide adaptation, Borlaug's involvement in the Indian wheat program, and internal debates about wide adaptation and selection under ideal conditions among Indian scientists. It argues that scientists leveraged the concept of wide adaptation to justify a particular regime of research focused on high production agriculture.

Citation: Baranski, Marci R. "Wide adaptation of Green Revolution wheat: International roots and the Indian context of a new plant breeding ideal, 1960–1970." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 50 (2015): 41-50.

Passed my dissertation defense!

This blog has been silent for quite some time because I've been working full time on my dissertation. Happily, a few days ago I passed my dissertation defense! I'm still working on my dissertation edits until April, but I hope to post a published article from my dissertation here soon.

What makes good science writing?

While working on my writing my dissertation now, I'm also involved in editing articles for the Embryo Project Encyclopedia. I think I enjoy this job because I'm working out both my science-brain and writing-brain. It can be a real challenge to transform an undergrad's piece of writing into publishable material, but it's also very rewarding.

In my program, Biology and Society, we are encouraged to take the Embryo Project writing and editing classes. Actually, you can read about it in the Huffington Post right now, where a former EP scholar shares her thoughts on the experience. In the editing class, we receive a lot of training on how to write clearly and logically about science. Some of the main lessons I've learned through the course and my own editing are:

• Present information in a logical order (i.e. big concept to detailed concept)
• Always explain uncommon words
• If you're going to use a technical word or acronym only once or twice, get rid of it and use a more common word
• Avoid nominalizations (making words into unnecessarily longer nouns)
• No passive voice

From what I've experienced, a lot of scientists struggle with everything except the first point, because the rest are regularly included, if not encouraged, in scientific writing such as journal articles. When you're writing for a scientific audience, it's quite like writing in a foreign language because you assume that your audience already has a grasp on that language. But when I write or edit for a public audience, I only assume that person has about a 9th grade education. Which is a good rule in general if you're speaking to an audience outside of your own field!

There are some good examples of science writing out there, such as the New York Times Science section, NPR's science section, Scientific American, and Wired. I was wondering what else my audience would recommend? And what, for you, makes science writing good?

Well, this is a terrible idea...

From Al Jazeera America, "House votes to defund reality"

"On Thursday, 227 Republicans and four Democrats voted for an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) proposed by Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va., that would prevent the Pentagon from spending money to carry out the policy recommendations from the National Climate Assessment or several United Nations reports on climate change and sustainability. 

It’s unclear if the amendment will make it into the final version of the NDAA — the annual spending bill for the Department of Defense, which is worked out mutually between the Senate and the House. But the overwhelming support in the House highlights the increasingly obvious gap between elected Republicans (and a few Democrats) and pretty much every government agency.   

The military has long been aware that climate change is a real and growing threat to the United States. Most recently, in a report published by a government-funded nonprofit earlier in May, retired military officers warned that climate change has already stretched defense budgets and could cause disruptions in military operations."

The Department of Defense has historically led federal innovations in science and technology. It would be a shame to see funding cut for development of common sense technologies that the DOD has identified as important for national security. It seems to me unlikely that this amendment will pass negotiations in the Senate.