Thomas Hager (www.thomashager.net), a veteran science writer, is the author of four books, including The Demon under the Microscope (Harmony/Crown 2006) and two acclaimed biographies of Linus Pauling.  A former correspondent for the Journal of the American Medical Association and a contributing writer at American Health, he has written for publications ranging from Readers Digest and Self to Cardio and Medical Tribune. 

Your new book, The Demon Under the Microscope: From Battlefield Hospitals to Nazi Labs, One Doctor’s Heroic Search for the World’s First Miracle Drug is set to be published in September.  How did you come up with the idea for this book? 

I studied microbiology and immunology in graduate school, before deciding to write about science instead of doing it. History is a passion of mine, especially the history of ideas, and so I spend a lot of time thumbing through reference texts. I came across the Demon story while jumping from one entry to another in a biographical encyclopedia of scientists, tracking the development of medical ideas through time. I came across a thread that started with people studying bacteria, then led to the first attempts to cure diseases with chemicals from a bacteriologist to a chemist to a Nobel Prize-winning German researcher I had never heard of before, a physician named Gerhard Domagk. He won his Prize in 1939, but was prevented from receiving it by Hitler. Reading the brief entry on Domagk was the first step in a two-year journey that resulted in the book.

How did you take that idea and turn it into a narrative nonfiction book?

This started out as the story of a discovery – the discovery of the first antibiotic (before penicillin) – and ended up as the story of a man. Domagk patiently worked for years looking for something he was never going to find – because he was working from a completely mistaken idea. Through a twist of fate, a lucky break, he stumbled onto one of the biggest breakthroughs in medical history, then got punished for it. His personal story became the narrative thread that runs through the book.

I understand you went to Europe for some of the research – can you talk about that?

I spent a week in Germany, in the archives of the Bayer Company, where Domagk did his work in the 1920s and 1930s, then another week in the archives of the Institut Pasteur in Paris, learning about a French group that ran competition to Domagk. I found thousands of pages of raw material, mostly in German or French, which I brought home for translation.

Given the vast amount of research that must go into a book like this, how did you keep track of everything?

In a major work of nonfiction, organization is everything. I now use a system in which I transfer all relevant facts from books and photocopies onto file cards, one fact per card, then organize the file cards by date and/or subject. Each card also includes the original source of the fact. I also keep separate files of artwork, photographs of the principal players and their workplaces. I like to see who I’m writing about.

What is the best part of the research process for you?  The worst part?

I love research, and I especially love archives. Archivists are unsung heroes, guardians of the raw material of history, the letters, diaries, memoranda, photos, recordings, and personal mementoes that make a history book come alive. There is very little I dislike about research. The worst thing, I suppose, is that I get fascinated by little side-stories and end up spending too much time on research, shorting the time I have for writing. I’m trying to get a better balance with that.

You were a long time editor of Oregon Quarterly, and then later headed up the University of Oregon Press.  How did your jobs as editor and publisher differ, and how do they differ from your current life as a full time writer?  Do you miss the editing?

I think every writer would benefit from knowing something about how editors and publishers see the world – if for no other reason than that it makes it easier for the writer to communicate effectively with editors and publishers. Being an editor gave me an appreciation of audience – the sense of writing for readers rather than personal satisfaction alone – and a feel for what makes a compelling story; and being a publisher helped me understand the very different priorities that publishers have – an appreciation for the marketplace, publicity, and sales.

You have mentioned that you see your job as being a translator of ‘science-speak’ to language that the average person can understand.  What is the biggest challenge of that?

Scientists, in their work lives, speak different dialects of an arcane professional language – the language of science. Anyone who’s tried reading an article in a physics or chemistry journal knows how difficult it is for the general public to understand that language. I try to cut through the language to get at the reality of scientific research, an understanding of its importance, then respeak it in ways that will resonate with a wider audience.

You have master’s degrees in both medical microbiology and immunology and in journalism.  Which do you feel was more important to your success as a writer?

Given my area of writing specialty, I’d say both are important in different ways. The scientific training gave me an ability to understand scientists and what they do; the journalistic side gave me the tools to tell stories to the public.

I’m always interested in what writers read.  Who are your favorite authors?  What are you reading right now?

I read a lot of books for research. The next book, the one I’m working on now, focuses on a little-known discovery of almost unbelievable importance – it is directly responsible for keeping more than 2 billion people alive today. And it’s not a medical discovery. Can you guess what it is? Here’s a hint: Right now I’m racing through books about the history of Peru and Chile, the development of gunpowder, the history of sailing ships, the Coolie trade, and the life of Sir William Crookes, a British scientist who believed in ghosts. And a lot about the periodic table. For relaxation, I’m reading some of the Aubrey-Maturin books by Patrick O’Brian -- sort of boy’s adventure stories about the sea, with staggering amounts of historical detail.

I know you have some public appearances scheduled for the publication of The Demon Under the Microscope.   Do you like to do readings?  What is the best/worst part of that process?

I enjoy giving readings and lectures. The best part is meeting people who have an interest in what I do. The worst came about ten years ago -- I was touring for a biography I wrote -- when I spoke to exactly one person at a bookstore in California.