
In job ads for news writers, you’ll often see a reference to the ideal candidate having a “fast news metabolism”. It means: How much information can you cram into your eye holes and how quickly can you digest it all into a compact pellet of 400 words? (I apologise for taking the metaphor to its natural conclusion.)
The question of whether speed should be the primary objective in science news coverage is beyond the scope of this post. (I will offer that, anecdotally, all my own worst “news pellets” were generated in greatest haste.)
However, while I was in the trenches of electrophysiology history research for my book, I found an idea I liked a lot better than metabolism for how I think about my approach to science news: chronaxie.
Even by electrophysiology standards, this term is a deep cut. It was introduced in 1909 by the French physiologist* Louis Lapicque, one of many physicians beguiled by the invention of a new tool known as the galvanometer, and its ability to eavesdrop on electrical activity inside the body. This was already revealing whole new worlds of health and infirmity: the electrocardiogram had recently decoded the secrets of the heart’s various failure modes; Hans Berger was just gathering the first of the electrical brain data that would lead to the invention of the EEG.
But Lapicque wanted to use electrical signals to probe muscle and nerve health more generally. So he introduced the word “chronaxie” as a measure of how well tissue responds to electrical stimulation. It gets quite complicated – it’s the minimum amount of time an electrical current must be applied to trigger a muscle twitch, which also depends on minimum effective current strength (ugh, I know). But to completely oversimplify it, it’s the unit of time that locates the robustness of your nerve-muscle circuit on a spectrum from “knee-jerk” to “half-dead”, effervescent to torpid, Leslie Knope to April Ludgate. This reaction speed and strength is the indicator light for the health of your muscle.
Continue reading






