Scientific poetry competitions are catching on. First there was a genomics
poetry competition, organised by the Genomics Forum and the Scottish Poetry
Library. You’ve missed the deadline for entries; winners are due to be
announced in November. More recently the California Institute of Regenerative
Medicine organised a stem cell poetry competition in celebration of Stem Cell
Awareness Day. They got into some hot water with one of the winning entries and
have withdrawn it as it offended some religious sensitivities. The Scientist’s
blog Naturally Selected has no such qualms and has republished
the poem in question. Commenters there praised the poem.
Meanwhile, book competitions are hotting up. The shortlist
for the Royal Society prize for science books was published back in August
and the competition comes to a head on 21 Oct. The Daily
Telegraph published a guide to the shortlisted titles, tipping Nick Lane’s
book on evolution: Life ascending. Nature have reviewed
all six books on the shortlist, as have the Guardian.
The
Independent gives a vote for Nick Lane too, suggesting his book will
tie with Marcus Chown’s book We need to talk about Kelvin. It also
reports that funding for the prize is in doubt and this may be the last year
that it is organised.
Last week the Wellcome
Trust published their shortlist for works of fiction and non-fiction on the
theme of health, illness or medicine. This is the second year of the
competition. It would be nice if they could somehow combine with the Royal
Society prize.
Across the pond, the National Academies awarded
one of their communication prizes to Richard Holmes for his book “The Age of
Wonder: How the Romantic Generation Discovered the Beauty and Terror of
Science. This must be good as it also won the Royal Society prize last
year, but personally I found the book a bit like its title – very interesting
but rather wordy and too long.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Richard Wintle on A choral coda
- Frank Norman on A choral coda
- Anita Mynett on A choral coda
- Beatrice Mikuzi on Diversithon – some recipes
- Laurence Cox on Diversithon – some recipes
Archives
- September 2024
- May 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- April 2023
- April 2022
- January 2022
- September 2021
- June 2021
- February 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- December 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- June 2016
- March 2016
- April 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
Categories
- AI
- Archives
- Art
- Authorship
- Bibliographic management
- Bibliometrics etc
- Biographical
- Blogology
- Books
- Collections
- Communicating science
- Copyright and IP
- Crick
- Document delivery
- E-books
- Education
- Ethics
- Film
- Film and music
- Friends
- Froth
- Future of Libraries
- History
- Information skills
- Journal publishing
- Language
- Libraries and librarians
- Management
- Mentoring
- Metadata
- Music
- Open Access
- Open Science
- Peer review
- Preprints
- Reading recommendations
- Research Councils
- Research data
- Research management
- Research tools
- Scientific literature
- Searching
- Social networking
- Uncategorized
- Wikipedia
- Women
- Writing
Blogroll
Meta
Apparently the RS book prize has failed to secure a sponsor, so it might nit happen next year. Shame.
<em> The Scientist’s blog Naturally Selectedhas no such qualms and has republished the poem in question. </em>
Well, you know me, Frank. I’ll republish any old crap.
They got into some hot water with one of the winning entries and have withdrawn it as it offended some religious sensitivities.
Free expression alive and well in ‘the land of the free’, eh? Pathetic!
I read the poem and I found that there is no blasphemy, perhaps point depends on how you look.
It says?. But wait, there’s more.
What, I find surprising it is that in a poem it is to look for something that is offensive, if a poem is almost always something so instinctive, a poem is as visceral. But I digress.
Alejandro - I very much agree. I think there is an argument to be had (perhaps not a very long one) about blasphemy and its acceptability. But I can't see that poem as blasphemous. Looking at definitions of the word I found _gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem_. Quoting religious text and using it in a different, metaphorical, way doe not constitute irreverence to my way of thinking. </p>
Richard – yes it would be a shame to see them go. Maybe Amazon should sponsor the prize. Or perhaps someone could devise a crowdsourced way to choose the best.<p>
I hear ya, Frank.
I agree with your point of view, Frank.
Also is so difficult to interpret a poem, is that is can’t be analyzed, obtaining many results by interpretation.
I see the Telegraph got it right – Nick Lane won with Life Ascending.
The BBC is certainly saying us this will be the last time the Prize is awarded, which seems a real shame. Surely there must be SOME philanthropist somewhere who could sponsor it, even if the PharmaCos have all cried off?
The BBC report has a quote from Ben Goldacre suggesting that the emphasis on books is a bit out-of-date. @Madgestar described this on Twitter as ungracious, but I think he has a point. The equivalent US prize that I noted above has categories for best book, best newspaper/magazine, best radio/film/TV, and best online (won by Ed Yong this year).
Maybe if the Royal Society prize broadened to cover these categories then they could attract more coverage and funding?
Maggie Philbin, one of this year’s judges, has written in the Times Higher about the pirze, calling it an "invaluable catalyst" and explaining why it is a valuable part of the science book landscape.