One thing I had to adjust to quickly as a newspaper writer is the fact that the science that excites newspaper editors isn't always the same as the science that excites scientists. Ninety percent of the articles that appear in Science and Nature, for instance, are simply a waste of ink to any newspaper editor. And rightly so. If you're planning to venture into science writing for the public, remember that most people who read your stories, even if they are science buffs, do not care whether a particular enzyme needs magnesium to work. They do care, however, that a sheep has been cloned, and they care about some slightly less startling news too.
As the life sciences reporter at the Morning News, it's my responsibility to keep abreast of my beat well enough to know what makes a new development worthy of coverage. Most of the stories I do are my own ideas, but I also get assignments or suggestions from my editors. There is no formula; a lot depends on the publication you write for and the tastes of your editor. For example, my editor doesn't like to run profiles of scientists. He'd rather focus on their research. He won't accept a story on a research area that's been around for a few years; there has to be a more recent development. While "the last few years" is still considered new to scientists, to a newspaper, new usually means yesterday. That's an exaggeration, but stories do need a "news angle"-a reason to write that story now.
How Do You Explain DNA In Three Sentences?
You don't. One skill every science writer needs is the ability to explain complicated subjects in just a few words. That means you have to know what to put in and what to leave out. I've written 1500 word articles about genetics without mentioning DNA. "Genetic material," my favorite euphemism for DNA, does just fine in most cases. Sometimes, however, a story calls for a more detailed explanation of DNA. So genetic material becomes "a helical molecule that looks like two springs wound together." A mutation is a "misspelling." I can't say that "the gene is expressed only in the cone cells of the retina," but I can say that "the gene is turned on only in the cells of the eye that make color vision possible."
And so it goes. When you sit down and write an article about science, you shouldn't tell the reader any more than they need to know at that point in the story. Remember too, editors usually have a word limit. For daily newspaper articles, that means putting the meat at the top and saving details for later. Editors generally cut these stories from the bottom. Longer, feature-type articles may have more leeway. With practice, you'll get a feel for how much detail you can fit in a story of a given length.
Do Scientists Like Reporters?
Some do and some don't. Most people I call for stories are happy to talk to me. Generally, they are flattered by the attention, and they think it's important to communicate their research to the public. But occasionally, there are hurdles. The most prominent people in the field, for example, also tend to be the busiest. I once had to schedule a 15-minute phone interview a month in advance!
Other problems include sources that either never call back, or call back in a few days, well after the story has appeared in the paper. Rarer, but definitely out there, is the scientist who simply refuses to get on the phone with a reporter. There's not much to be done about them, so I don't waste my time trying to convince them.
The biggest worry scientists have is being misquoted. They are used to having control over everything else with their name on it-manuscripts, meeting abstracts, grant applications-and often get nervous when they can’t see the newspaper article before it comes out. Our paper doesn't allow that, and I can usually reassure my sources by telling them that I don’t want to be wrong in print any more than they do. If I have questions, I always call them back.
After the article appears, I always send copies to all my sources, whether I ended up quoting them or not. I've found that researchers appreciate this, and if they are the hard-to-reach type, they are more likely to return my calls in the future.
Will Anyone Read What You Write?
If it's a well-written, interesting story, you can bet people will read it. I don't get daily feedback from my readers, but a couple of letters or phone calls a month isn't out of the ordinary. Most have been complimentary, but occasionally I hear from someone who's unhappy with something I've written, such as one article I did on evolution. A creationist didn't buy what I had written, and he sent me a nasty letter to that effect.
I've also received calls from people who oppose animal research. When I write or call back, I politely explain my reasons for writing the story. There's not much more to be done-if you write a lot of stories, eventually there will be someone who doesn't like one.
So that's the life of a newspaper science reporter-never a dull moment! I can't say firsthand what any other science writing job is like day to day, because I've only worked at newspapers. But from what I can guess, the general work pace is about the same for someone working at a public information office or a magazine. Each job has its own peculiarities though, and schedules will vary accordingly.
Will I Be Any Good At This?
First of all, you have to like to write. But don't get me wrong-I don't think you need a burning passion to express yourself through the written word. However, you should enjoy the challenge, and have a natural sense of what reads well. Even if you like to write but sometimes struggle or find it hard to get started, don't let that stop you. The more practice you get, the easier it becomes. My writing speed has increased at least by a factor of 10 since I started.
Other Important Qualities:
Ego: It shouldn't be large. You can't be afraid to ask stupid questions, and you can't afford to get offended when scientists talk down to you. Believe me, some will. Also, be prepared to have your work criticized by editors. The less personally you take their advice, the more you'll learn.
Self-motivation: This should be high. Everyone needs encouragement, but you should be able to work independently and take initiative. This isn't usually a problem for someone who has made it through a Ph.D. program.
Interpersonal: You should be able to work well with others. It's important to stay on good terms with your editor. And getting good information from sources requires that you can put them at ease and earn their trust. Don't worry if you've never interviewed anyone before. There are a few tricks that make it a lot easier, and with experience you'll soon become a pro.
Accuracy: Also a must. You don't want to be wrong in print. You need to have an appreciation for detail and subtlety. And don't misspell anyone's name!
An ability to work under pressure: This will come up in almost every writing job I can imagine. Fortunately, writing on deadline also gets easier with practice.
An open mind: This is a given. Unless you're writing fiction or an opinion piece, you have to report what your sources tell you, and it may not be what you expect. You can't make stuff up or let preconceived notions get in your way. You should be able to ask lots of questions and listen, listen, listen!
So Is This Really Better Than The Lab?
For me, without question writing is much better than the lab. Becoming a science writer has been a life-saving career move. The only thing I miss about doing research is working with my hands, and that void is easily filled through hobbies. My attention span is too short to be a scientist, so journalism suits me perfectly.
But my new career did take some getting used to. I fill out a time card now and need to be in by a certain time every day. I only get 2 weeks of vacation a year. I can't wear shorts and a T-shirt to work, or take off in the middle of the afternoon for a jog and then return to work all sweaty. My daily stress is a little higher.
But the positives definitely outweigh the negatives. I don't work weekends or evenings anymore. Also, writing is a field where you can see yourself progressing. Each type of story-short or long, hard news or feature-has its own limitations and possibilities. That means there are elements in each that you can isolate and improve on. Since leaving the lab, progress has become more obvious and tangible for me. And short of the newspaper folding-a very unlikely possibility in my case-I feel that my job security is good.
Last, I've found that my scientific background is more appreciated now than it was when I worked in the lab. If that sounds cheap (I'm supposed to be the newspaper's expert in life sciences anyway) then so be it. Having people's respect builds my confidence and makes me feel good about my job.
Where Can I Get More Information?
Check out the National Association of Science Writer's web page at http://www.nasw.org. This site will give you more information on the field. (Some links are accessible only to members.) From this site you can order a book called A Field Guide for Science Writers. It's written by prominent science writers and contains more detailed information than I've given here. The back of the book has a list of resources useful to working writers, as well as addresses of university science writing courses programs. Also check out the link on science writing under "New Niches" at http://www.aaas.org.
