Science reporting and the LHC (Large Hadron Collider)

Slate.com writer Chris Wilson had an interesting piece today entitled, "Atomic Prose: Why can't science journalists just tell it like it is when it comes to particle physics?" Wilson states that he prefers more matter-of-fact descriptions of particle physics, such as Richard Feynman's description:

"...[he] was fond of comparing the process of exploring the atom to smashing two pocket watches together and then trying to figure out how they worked by examining the debris—an analogy that neatly captures how particle physics is a distinctly forensic exercise."

I agree that sprinkling nuts and bolts descriptions with sprinklings of religious imagery can be distracting, I think *some* of it is warranted in this case. The experiments that will be conducted at the LHC are notable both for their scale and the fact that they represent a massive push against the unknown. While material scientists who design, say, new ways to squeeze more transistors on a wafer of silicon have more obvious and immediate benefit to society, here the focus is more esoteric and deeper. Probing the unknown simply because it is there is a concept that most readers only encounter in a religious context. So it is understandable, I think, that journals attempt to couch their descriptions of these grand experiments in terms that convey the depth of importance to their readers.