Congratulations to the winners and finalists of our Science Writing Competition! From a thought experiment about gravity to the link between the gut and the brain, these writers wowed Guest Judge Shannon Palus with their explainer articles. Read on to learn more.
Please note: Winning and finalist pieces on the site are now publicly viewable!
‘What Would Happen if Earth had 1/2 the Gravity it Does Today?’ by BellBell (United States), age 15
This piece is packed with information and is so much fun to read! The author does an excellent job of taking the reader through a thought experiment, and anticipating what questions and points of confusion they might have. It's full of vivid examples—I can really feel and picture the effects of lower gravity as I read. I appreciate the author's use of a variety of sources, including an email interview, and the fact that they were able to connect the thought experiment in the piece to research happening at NASA today, as well as the ambitions of would-be space pioneers. The use of the second person isn't something you see a lot in science journalism, but it really works here to carry the reader through the scenario, and teach them something new along the way. Finally, I like the little twist at the end, where the author points out that our Earth's gravity is something to appreciate, for all it does for us physiologically: this is one of those pieces that will change, subtly but meaningfully, how readers think about the world around them.
‘Your Mind Under Microbes’ by Sophie. Z (United States), age 14
This piece starts off with a punch, pulling the reader in with a surprising fact that they might not have heard before, and then asking a provocative question that almost requires them to keep reading. The author makes good use of studies to demonstrate the fact that there can be a connection between microbes and mental health, noting when the studies were done in mice versus people, and when a study was a randomized control trial (all very important information for the reader to have about the strength of the evidence). I like that the reader is left with practical tips—as well as the fact that the piece acknowledges that "eat a balanced diet" isn't the most fun thing to hear.
‘STEMming from Stem Cells: The Unemployed Workers of the Human Body’ reviewed by Lasya (United States), age 15
This feedback gets at exactly what keeps readers reading (imagery, metaphors, and juicy questions) and identifies what can make them tune out or get confused (big, technical words that they don't understand). By pulling quotes from the piece, the reviewer lets the author know exactly what was working and not working. Telling an author what is working is so important when giving feedback, and this review leaves the author with a clear picture of their piece's strengths—what not to change as they revise, and what they should keep leaning into in their writing—as well as very specific things they can do to improve the piece further. Overall, really great specificity in this review! It's also clear to me that the reviewer has a lot of respect for the writer's work and an appreciation for it: they're not at all playing the critic looking to throw a tomato at the writer; they're on the same team as the writer, aiming to do their part to produce the best piece possible by providing feedback.
‘‘Wait, Is Mars Moonwalking?’: The Curious Case of Retrograde Motion’ by Rayyan (Pakistan)
‘the lives of stars’ reviewed by sam the indigo (United States)