![]() |
Mariette DiChristina is editor in chief of Scientific American. |
[Ed. note: This
interview is the second installment in our new series, Double Xpression:
Profiles of Women into Science. The focus of these profiles is how
women in science express themselves in ways that aren’t necessarily scientific,
how their ways of expression inform their scientific activities and vice-versa,
and the reactions they encounter.]
Today’s profile is an
interview with Mariette DiChristina, editor in chief,
Scientific American, who answered our questions
via email with DXS Biology Editor Jeanne Garbarino. Read on to find out what a Marx Brothers
movie has to do with communicating science.
DXS: First,
can you give me a quick overview of what your scientific background is and your
current connection to science?
MD: Like most
kids, I was born a scientist. What I mean is, I wanted to know how everything
worked, and I wanted to learn about it firsthand. At a tag sale, for instance,
I remember buying a second-hand biology book called The Body along with my second-hand Barbie for 50 cents. “Are you
sure your mom is going to be OK with you buying that?” asked the concerned
neighbor, eyeing the biology book.
I
memorized the names and orbital periods of the planets and of dinosaurs like
some kids spout baseball stats (which I could also do as a kid, by the way). We
didn’t have a lot of money, so I caught my own pet fish from a nearby pond by
using my little finger as a pretend worm. I scooped up my fish with an old
plastic container and put it on my nightstand. If it died, I buried it and dug
it up later so I could look at the bones. My proudest birthday gifts were when
I got a chemistry
set and a microscope with 750x. A girlfriend and I got the idea to pick up
a gerbil that had a bad habit of biting fingers, just so we could get blood to
squeeze on a glass slide. (She was braver than I was about being the one to get
bitten.)
In
middle school, I was a proud member of the Alchemists—an after-school science
club—so I could do extra labs and clean the beakers and put away Bunsen burners
for fun. I knew I would be a scientist when I grew up.
But
somewhere during my high school courses, I came to believe that being a
scientist meant I’d have to pick one narrow discipline and stick to it. I felt
that I liked everything too much to do that, however. As an undergraduate, I
eventually figured out that what I really wanted was to be a student of many
different things for life, and then share those things I learned with others.
That led me to a journalism degree. It also means that, as far as knowledge
about science goes, I fit the cliché of being “an inch deep and a mile wide.”
DXS: What
ways do you express yourself creatively that may not have a single thing to do
with science?
MD: This one is
a tough one for me to answer because I am always trying to convince people that
pretty much everything they care about in the headlines actually has to do with
science! In my case, I’ve also always been interested in drawing and in visuals
in general. I was a pretty serious art student in high school as well, although
I later decided that I didn’t have enough passion for it to make that my career
choice. My interest in art partly led me to work at magazines like Scientific American and Popular Science, where the ability to
storyboard an informational graphic and otherwise think visually is very
helpful.
When
I’m home, I really enjoy making things with my two daughters, such as helping
them with crafts or scrapbooks, although I definitely spend a lot more time on
planning dinners and cooking for (and with) the family than anything else. I
like the puzzle solving of setting up the meals for the week during the
weekend, so it’s easier for my husband to get things ready weeknights. We’re
big on eating dinner together as a family every night. I like gardening and
mapping out planting beds. I’m better at planting than at keeping up with
tending, however, because of my intense work schedule and travel. In short, if
I have free time at all, I’m enjoying it with my family. And if we’re doing
some creative expression while we’re at it, great!
DXS: Do you
find that your connection to science informs your creativity, even though what
you do may not specifically be scientific?
MD: My
connection to science informs most things that I do in one way or another. When
I’m making dinner, I sometimes find myself talking about the chemistry of
cooking with the girls. Especially when our daughters were smaller, if one of
them had a question, I’d try to come up with ways to make finding the answer
together into a kind of science adventure or project.
I
suppose that since I spend most of my waking hours thinking about how best to
present science to the public, it’s just a mental routine, or a lens through
which I tend to view the world.
DXS: Have
you encountered situations in which your expression of yourself outside the
bounds of science has led to people viewing you differently--either more
positively or more negatively?
MD: It’s more
the other way around. I get amusing reactions from people once they find out
what I do. How could I seem so normal and yet work in a field that relates to…shudder…science? An attorney friend has
sometimes kidded me, saying there’s no way he can understand what’s in Scientific American, so I must be
incredibly smart. I don’t feel that way at all! Anybody who has a high school
degree and an interest in the topic can understand a feature article in Scientific American. Science is for
everyone. And science isn’t only for people who work in labs. It’s just a
rational way of looking at life. I also believe science is the engine of human
prosperity. And if I sound a little evangelistic about that, well, I am.
DXS: Have
you found that your non-science expression of creativity/activity/etc. has in
any way informed your understanding of science or how you may talk about it or
present it to others?
MD: I think
it’s helpful to look to non-science areas for ideas about ways to help make
science appealing, especially for people who might be intimidated by the
subject. My main job is to try to make a connection for people to the science
we cover in Scientific American. I
once had a boss at Popular Science
who made all us editors take an intensive, three-day screenwriting course that
culminated in the showing and exposition, scene by scene, of the structure and
writing techniques of Casablanca.
When I came back, he gave me a big grin and said, “So, what did you think?” I
got his point about bringing narrative techniques into feature articles. Like
most people, I enjoy movies and plays; now I also look at them for storytelling
tips. And there are lots of creative ways to tell science stories beyond words:
pictures, slide shows, videos, songs. Digital media are so flexible.
DXS: How
comfortable are you expressing your femininity and in what ways? How does this
expression influence people’s perception of you in, say, a scientifically
oriented context?
MD: I was the
oldest of three daughters raised by a single dad (my mom died when I was 12)
and I was always a tomboy, playing softball through college and so on. So I
can’t say I’ve ever been terribly feminine, at least in the stereotypical ways.
At the same time, I’m obviously a wife and a mother who, like most parents,
tries not to talk about my kids so often that it’s irritating to friends and
coworkers. I once was scolded in a letter from an irritated reader after I had
mentioned my kids in a “From the Editor” column about education. He wrote that
if I was so interested in science education and kids, I should go back home and
“bake cookies.” I laughed pretty hard at that.
DXS: Do you
think that the combination of your non-science creativity and scientific-related
activity shifts people’s perspectives or ideas about what a scientist or
science communicator is? If you’re aware of such an influence, in what way, if
any, do you use it to (for example) reach a different corner of your audience
or present science in a different sort of way?
MD: I’m sure
that’s true. I think personality and approach also might shift perspectives. A
girlfriend of mine once called me “the friendly face of science.” I guess I
smile a lot, and I like to meet people and try to get to know them. That
ability—being able to make a personal connection to different people—is
important for every good editor. My job, essentially, is to understand your
interests well enough to make sure Scientific
American is something that you’ll enjoy each day, week, month.
Increasingly,
also, the audiences are different in different media, so we need to understand
how to flex the approach a bit to appeal to those different audiences. In
print, for instance, according to the most recent data we have from MRI, the median
age of Scientific American readers is
47, with 70 percent men and 30 percent women. The picture is quite different
online, where, according to Nielsen, our median age is 40 and the male/female
ratio is closer to half and half, with 56.5 percent men to 43.5 percent women.
You need to bring a lot of creative thinking to the task of how to make one
brand serve rather different sets of people.
Fortunately,
I have terrific, creative staff! And another part of the way you do that, I
think, is to invite your readers in to collaborate; we’ve done a bit of that in
the past year on http://www.scientificamerican.com/,
and I’m looking forward to experimenting further in the coming months.
Ultimately, I’d like to turn Scientific
American from a magazine with an amazing 166-year tradition of being a
conduit of authoritative information about science and technology into a
platform where curious minds can gather and share.
DXS: If you
had something you could say to the younger you about the role of expression and
creativity in your chosen career path, what would you say?
MD: I was pretty determined to do something—whatever it
was—that would let me satisfy my curiosity and passion about science. I would
tell younger me, who, by the way, never intended to go into magazine
management: It’s just as fun, rewarding and creative to be a science writer as
you suspect it might be. I’d also tell the younger me something that didn’t
occur to me early enough to pull it off—that a double major in journalism and
science might be a good idea. And, I would add, it’s also a good idea to take
some business classes, so you’ll be better armed for dealing with the working
world.
Also on Double X Science
- Chemistry sets and the power of hands-on science
- Notable Women in Science Series
- Double Xpression: Interview with Meghan Groome, PhD, Director of K12 Education and Science & the City, New York Academy of Sciences
More about
Mariette DiChristina
Mariette DiChristina oversees Scientific
American, ScientificAmerican.com, Scientific American Mind and all newsstand special editions.
She is the eighth person and first female to assume the top post in Scientific American's
166-year history. Under her leadership, the magazine received a 2011 National
Magazine Award for General Excellence.
A science journalist for more than 20 years,
she first came to Scientific American in 2001 as its executive editor. She
is an advisor for the Citizen Science Alliance. She was named an AAAS Fellow in
2011. She was also the president (in 2009 and 2010) of the 2,500-member
National Association of Science Writers. She was an adjunct professor in the
graduate Science, Health and Environmental Reporting program at New York
University for the several years. DiChristina is a frequent lecturer and has
appeared at the New York Academy of Sciences, California Academy of Sciences,
92nd Street Y in New York, Yale University and New York University among many
others.
Previously,
she spent nearly 14 years at Popular
Science in positions
culminating as executive editor. Her work in writing and overseeing articles
about space topics helped garner that magazine the Space Foundation's 2001
Douglas S. Morrow Public Outreach Award. In spring 2005 she was Science Writer
in Residence at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her chapter on science
editing appears in the second edition of A Field Guide for Science
Writers. She is former chair of Science Writers in New York (2001
to 2004) and a member of the American Society of Magazine Editors and the
Society of Environmental Journalists. DiChristina was honored by New York's
Italian Heritage and Culture Committee in October 2009 for her contributions as
an Italian American to science journalism and education in New York City. In
January 2010, she was honored by the National Organization of Italian American
Women as one as one of its "Three Wise Women" of 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment