“Mother and Daughter” By Neildodhia
In her NPR article “The Mystery of Why You Can’t Remember Being a Baby,” Allison Aubrey takes a universal human experience–our inability to recall our earliest years–and turns it into an engaging and informative exploration of memory and brain development. What makes the piece particularly effective is its conversational tone, the clarity of its explanations, and its use of relatable examples. Aubrey doesn’t just tell us what childhood amnesia is, she shows us why we should care, and how it connects to our own lives.
Aubrey’s article opens with a compelling question: Why can’t we remember anything before the age of three or four? This question serves as a hook that immediately grabs readers’ attention, and her subsequent explanation is grounded in current neuroscience. She cites the work of Canadian researcher Paul Frankland, who found that the formation of new brain cells in the hippocampus during early development may actually “overwrite” existing memories (Aubrey). Rather than delving into overly technical language, Aubrey keeps the tone light and accessible, using phrases like “wipes the slate clean” to convey complex biological processes in a digestible way.
One of the most effective elements of this piece is its use of signal phrases and expert voices. Aubrey refers to several scientists, including Sheena Josselyn and Patricia Bauer, to support the explanation of memory development. For example, she writes, “Josselyn and Frankland believe this cell turnover in the hippocampus explains why we can’t remember being babies.” These signal phrases enhance the article’s credibility while maintaining its readability, aligning with what Michelle Nijhuis describes in The Craft of Science Writing as the balance between “journalistic integrity and narrative clarity” (27).
Aubrey also does a great job of using analogy and metaphor, two rhetorical tools that make the science more relatable. When she describes the brain’s memory process as a “tug of war” between learning and remembering, she helps general readers visualize an abstract neurological process. This use of figurative language makes the article engaging without oversimplifying the science.
What’s also notable is the way Aubrey subtly connects the science to personal experience. She references common childhood moments, like first steps or early birthdays, that we know happened but can’t remember. These details personalize the topic, turning what could have been a dry neuroscience article into something emotionally resonant. As The Open Notebook featured in The Craft of Science Writing suggests, effective science writing should “make the abstract personal” (Nijhuis 49), and Aubrey does exactly that.
If there is a weakness in the article, it might be that it doesn’t go deeply into counter-theories or explore alternative explanations for childhood amnesia. Still, this feels like a deliberate editorial choice to maintain accessibility, rather than a failure of research.
In the end, Aubrey’s article exemplifies what good science writing should do: it educates, it entertains, and it invites further curiosity. For anyone who’s ever wondered why their earliest years remain a blank slate, this piece provides not only a satisfying answer but also a model for how science can be communicated clearly and engagingly to a general audience.
Works Cited:
Nijhuis, Michelle, editor. The Craft of Science Writing. The Open Notebook, 2020.
Science Writings 