The Writing of Science: Silent Spring and The Naturalist

I meant to write my thoughts on E. O. Wilson's autobiography The Naturalist some time ago. I am glad to finally be putting some nebulous ideas into concrete words. For a while I have been feeling that I was constricting myself with the types of works I chose. Literary fiction is a worthy pursuit, but as my interests swerve into the field of science, my world has unfolded considerably, and I cannot seriously assert that anyone who prides themselves in attaining a well-rounded education can ignore the vast and important field of literary non-fiction, especially works written by people who have dedicated themselves to a scientific field. So today, I am excited to be able to write about two biologists who kept in mind the interest of the general reader who may or may not have formal training in science.

E. O. Wilson's autobiography is an earnest, humbling memoir of one of the most eminent biologists of the twentieth and twenty first century. Wilson is adept at creating for the reader that same wonder and love for the natural world as he has. His vivid accounts of childhood encounters with wildlife include the almost mystical telling of his yearning to observe the elusive sting ray. This recounting prompts the reader to meander back in time (as it did me) to their own special and mystifying encounters with nature. I must say that I felt some regret for not feeling as much an intense wonder at nature as Wilson had at such a young age. There is something to be mourned for the child who never feels the wonder of the universe, whether it is from gazing at the twinkling stars or running around catching sulfur butterflies. To label science as an unfeeling, exclusively rational field is to fall into an utter fallacy.

Wilson's passion for nature eventually led to a professorship at Harvard. He makes it clear, however, that scholarship at the Harvard level is as cutthroat as trying to survive in the African wilds. Genius and a taste for competition are practically essential for any scientist who wants to make it at the top of any academic field. His encounters with Francis Crick were especially enlightening. By mid century, biology seemed to be on its way out, pushed to the sidelines by chemistry, physics and genetics. These fields theorized that all life, including behavior of animals, could be explained at the molecular level. However, Wilson and other colleagues pioneered the field of ecology and proved the relevance of biology, and even old fashioned naturalists, to new, cutting edge theories. Wilson is one of the most prolific scholars, but he is, just as importantly, a writer who is accessible to the less scientifically minded general public. His consciousness of the environmental issues the human race faces gives him relevance to the next generation of environmentalists and scientists who are concerned with ecology. I can't wait to pick-up another one of his books.

Another author who is just as relevant to our day as she was almost 60 years ago, is Rachel Carson. Her seminal work entitled Silent Spring brings to light a danger of the most insidious kind, that of  synthetic chemicals civilization has released into the environment. Her main concern is the use of pesticides and herbicides in both the government and private sector. Originally published as installments in The New Yorker, Silent Spring brought important knowledge of many dangerous, yet ubiquitous chemicals to the general public.

A reader may ask, why should I read Silent Spring? Isn't the science 60 year old science? Isn't the danger of chemicals known already? Without missing a beat I will tell them that Carson's work is just as relevant today. She provides the reader an exercise in expanding one's consciousness. I mean that the same points she made in the 1960s can still be used today in many other areas of one's life. These are just a few reasons why you should read Silent Spring:

1) Never have blind faith in anything. Another subtle lesson from her book is the wariness we must take on with special interests. Many times, harmful sprayings of towns and forests came about because chemical businesses lobbied for the spraying. Many times spraying policies followed money and profit rather than science and reason.

2) Respect nature. Humans are connected to the environment whether we like it or not.
Like E.O. Wilson's environmental philosophy, Rachel Carson's is one of ecology. We are all connected. The smallest bacteria living in soil is just as important to the environment as the 1,000 year old red wood. Without tiny bacteria living in the soil, humans would not be able to survive and grow food. Another scary thought she makes is that nature will go on and survive even with the chemicals, but it is our choice whether or not we want to survive with it.

3) We are still living in a chemically polluted world, with new chemicals being created and used every day. Just because there are now government regulations against pollution doesn't mean we are safe (Watch Homo Toxicus, a documentary that explores the current dangers society faces from synthetic chemicals).

In a final tying together of these two important books I found a delightful surprise in the afterword of Silent Spring. None other than E. O. Wilson himself penned the concluding thoughts of the book. His additional musings on the plague of chemical pollutants adds more fuel to the argument against releasing chemicals that mess with the sanctity of life.