ToW #17 - Article from Popular Science: "Birth of Memory"

        Placed in the "KinderLab" section of the Popular Science online magazine, "Birth Of Memory: Why Kids Forget What Happened Before Age 7" explains the ever present phenomenon of "childhood amnesia" with evidence found in both studies and anecdotes. Childhood amnesia is, in short, the tendency for most children to forget nonemotional events that happened early on in their lives. Kate Gammon, the freelance science writer of this article, keenly transitions from an anecdote about her young niece to scientific analysis, ending her short essay with conclusions about her young niece's forgetfulness.
        Published by Popular Science, this article fittingly has a popular subject: kids. In writing about these extremely common small humans, Gammon appeals to adults with young children, a key demographic, with the fact that there is an entire section devoted to the science of children. Perhaps to hook these readers in, Gammon begins with an anecdote about her four-year-old niece who recently had mouth surgery. She transitions into the bulk of the article by noting that this niece seems to have already forgotten the recent pain of the surgery. This concept -- the capacity for young children to forgive and forget easily -- is one that even I have a grasp on, so doubtless must it pull new parents right in to the article.
        Then, in hopes of satisfying the intellectual side of these parent (and not) readers, Gammon transitions into the scientific side of childhood amnesia. She writes about a recently conducted study conducted by Patricia Bauer and draws some conclusions based on the information that Bauer gave her. This tactic, reporting the ideas of an assumed professional, puts the bulk of the scientific responsibility on the professional. Gammon probably did this simply because she is not a master of childhood memory sciences and Bauer may be, but it leaves a strange impression on the reader. As a reporter, Gammon achieves the basic purpose of entertaining and informing her readers with anecdotes and science, but as a scientist, she completely defers her job, making the article seem one-sided. Perhaps this is acceptable practice, I don't know. But I will say that I feel much more comfortable reading a scientific article written by a scientist, as I did months ago in my ToW #3.