As is often the case after bombings and explosions, a steady stream of science stories seeking to explain the mechanics of what happened—and what’s being done about it—has flowed from the tragedies in Boston and West, TX last week.

After authorities recovered remnants a press cooker they believe was used in the bombs at the Boston Marathon last Monday, a number of reports explained how the appliances can be rigged to kill and what crime scene investigators are doing to learn more about the explosives that were used.

One of the best on-scene narratives was a piece for The New Yorker’s new science and tech blog, Elements, by Paige Williams, an award-winning writer who teaches journalism at Harvard and lives in Boston’s South End, less than a mile from where the bombs went off. She took a walk to the cordoned off area with Dr. Adam B. Hall, a forensic chemist and former crime-scene analyst for the Massachusetts State Police who teaches at Boston University. Along the way, he explained what detectives would most likely be looking at, from the sound, smell and color of the explosions, to shrapnel and other relics.

Associated Press science reporter Seth Borenstein filed a similar article from Washington that featured the expert commentary of Denny Kline, a former FBI explosives expert and instructor in forensics at its academy, and Matthew Horace, a former special agent for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Other notable dispatches included, “Why Use a Pressure Cooker to Build a Bomb?” from NPR, “What Are ‘Pressure Cooker’ Bombs and Why Do Terrorists Use Them?” from The New York Times (filed by a correspondent in New Delhi who discusses their use by militants in Middle East and Asia), and a video, “How Does the FBI Conduct a Bomb Investigation?” from The Wall Street Journal.

Another major theme of the coverage was surveillance—both what it can do to thwart bombings and what it can do to bring perpetrators to justice when that fails.

On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal ran well paired articles on page six, for instance. The first highlighted some of the advanced technologies that authorities use to “prevent and investigate plots,” including surveillance cameras that can read license plates, sensors that can detect chemical and radiological material, “communication hubs that link local, state and federal agencies during a crisis.” The second described how law enforcement is capitalizing on the “citizen surveillance” enabled by proliferation of photos and videos from cell phones.

The tech magazine IEEE Spectrum also had a good piece headlined, “Boston Marathon: Can Technology Do a Better Job of Finding Bombs?”

Once authorities announced that they had found what the The New York Times called “clear video images of two potential suspects,” however, a few reports zeroed in on facial recognition technology. According to the Times:

The F.B.I. has been working for several years to create a facial recognition program, and the video of a suspect or suspects could be matched against the bureau’s database of mug shots of about 12 million people who have been arrested, officials said.

Greta van Susteren brought up facial recognition briefly on Fox News, asking an expert about its precision, but Allison Steele had a more thorough evaluation of the technology’s reliability and how it works at The Philadelphia Inquirer.

In the end, though, it didn’t take any fancy software to flush to out Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the alleged bombers. According to The New York Times’s Michael S. Schmidt and Eric Schmit reported the FBI’s decision to release photos of the brothers to the public was the “turning point” in the investigation. They later explained that:

As investigators intensified their search for clues, the investigation’s focus shifted in the last two days from a manhunt that relied heavily on cutting-edge surveillance technology to help track down the suspects to more traditional investigative methods. Those approaches include interviews with friends, relatives and others who knew the suspects and examinations of computers, phones, writings and their possessions.

Curtis Brainard is the editor of The Observatory, CJR's online critique of science and environment reporting. Follow him on Twitter @cbrainard.