a different perspective on the very idea of science and nature writing. So much of the best writing in the field is told from the perspective of a journalist trekking along behind a scientist and attempting to explain what exactly he or she does and why it matters. The writer is an enthusiastic observer who takes up the task of defining the problem (the encroachment of bark beetles, the intractability of certain cancers), building the world in which these problems exist (the Rocky Mountains, a public housing project) and then embodying for the reader the scientist who hopes to do something about it. It's the "hero's journey" narrative structure, superimposed upon science journalism.

We love these stories. We love the idea of the lone protagonist battling a diabolical andare no rules for living on this planet, only consequences. What is needed is an open exchange in which sentience shapes the eye and mind and results in ever-deepening empathy. Beauty and blood and what Ralph Waldo Emerson called "strange sympathies" with otherness would circulate freely in us, and the songs of the bearded seal's ululating mating call, the crack and groan of ancient ice, the Arctic tern's cry, and the robin's evensong would inhabit our vocal cords.
ROSE EVELETH

# Why Are Sports Bras So Terrible?

FROM _Racked_

THE FIRST THING TO KNOW about sports and breasts is this: women have always participated in athletics, bra or no bra. In ancient Rome, women bound their breasts with cloth and leather. Pottery and mosaics from the fourth and fifth centuries show female