Reply to comment

I've been thinking a lot, recently, about the links between science (or, in our case, evolution) and literature. I don't see the two as very far apart. In order to communicate an idea or a theory, we as humans have to use language and, more often than not, in writing. 

But there seems to be this insane notion out there that all science in literature has to be dry, dull, by-the-book lab write-ups that causes a lot of self-implemented concussions and screams of fury.

Why can't science writing be interesting? And why is it so hard to integrate science and literature? I guess I want to know what YOU all think "science writing" includes: textbooks, lab reports, articles from the newspaper and science magazines, etc.

Also, try reading "Stiff" or "Spook" by Mary Roach. Maybe that'll change your view of science writing.