[No.] It's easier to be a good scientist than a good writer. It's like playing a musical instrument; the elements of writing become automatic. Like any mental endeavor, you're running on automatic, allowing you to concentrate on the scenery.
My career was substantially based on three mental qualities. One, I love detail, especially in natural history. I actually read technical monographs on obscure groups of plants and animals and have practically memorized field guides for the sheer pleasure of them.
The second: methodology. I get bored solving problems.
I would rather learn more about nature than [have] the satisfaction of solving abstract problems. There are many good scientists who ignore the details and spend time solving abstract problems, but I am just the reverse.
I have a talent for synthesis; it made me latitudinal. I am always reaching out to bring in more information, and lining it up to make ...
