Back to Basics panel

By Raven Hanna

Good science writing relies on the same basic elements as any good writing, advised Back to Basics panelists John Wilkes, director of science writing at the University of California, Santa Cruz; Ted Glasser, director of journalism at Stanford University; and April Lynch, a seasoned medicine and health reporter at the San Jose Mercury News.

"Show unfailing courtesy" to your reader, Wilkes stressed. "Empathize with your reader. Keep your reader with you all the time -- every single sentence."

The science communication program Wilkes directs at UCSC is the only journalism program in the nation that requires its students to have significant science research experience. The challenge facing the students, Wilkes said, is to shed the impersonal and inactive style of academic publications and adopt an engaging literary tone.

"The reader is terrified of losing the thread. Once they do that, they don't get it back," Wilkes said. Science articles must be especially well written and well edited, he maintained, because of the often complex subjects.

Glasser is interested in journalism and society, with a focus on science communication's effects on social and political issues.

"The kind of claims that count in the U.S. are science claims," Glasser said, noting that even bogus scientific claims can serve as concrete evidence to some. "Americans tend to be more inebriated than well informed -- overwhelmed by facts and figures," he said.

Glasser described three genres of science writing, listed in ascending order of importance. The first, the "upbeat feature story," is a profile of a person or a project interesting to readers but without much relevance to their lives.

The second story type gives "vitally important information" about findings and discoveries that the public needs to know. Glasser warned that it is the journalist's responsibility to understand enough about science so that the findings aren't left to speak completely for themselves. "You need to make judgments about what's worth reporting, not about what's statistically significant," he said.

The third, most important, story type on Glasser's list politicizes science. Science informs political debates, but does not decide ethical issues, he said. Science writers have to give readers enough technical background to make informed decisions.

April Lynch reaffirmed Wilkes' advice on the importance of honoring readers and writing with elegance. "Steal the best tools of fiction writing," she suggested. Emotional impact and good crafting will pull a reader through even the densest science story.

Lynch stressed how important the human element is when writing science stories, yet reporters often leave it out. "As a writer, it will make your work more compelling. As a science journalist, it will make your work more relevant," she said. "Applying your work to the real world is the hard part."

Sources with personal stories are the hardest to find, Lynch said, suggesting that inquiries to friends and colleagues can bring a rich supply of sources. "If you want to do your story justice, remember to be people and bring people in," she said.

When asked about the etiquette for using a single interview for several stories, the panel's consensus was that while writers are not legally bound to ask the source permission for each publication, they are ethically bound. Because most scientists are not media-savvy, telling them their words might appear in multiple places is crucial in getting their "informed consent."

While showing both sides of an issue is a golden rule for journalists, it can pose a tricky problem for a science writer in cases where science supports only one side of the issue, such as evolution versus creationism. Science journalists should be objective, not even-handed, advised the panel. "Your judgment matters," said Glasser. Lynch agreed, adding that writers can clarify their judgment by ascertaining their own motives: "Who do I give more weight to? Why? How do I explain that?"

When asked what science journalists can do about the public's complaints that science reports don't give the whole story, the panelists commiserated. Glasser described the problem: "Something is in the headlines, then just disappears. The public wonders what happened to it before and after." The panelists agreed that journalists can never cover all science to the same degree and stories are often lost. So what can be done? Lynch said her stories stress that science is an ongoing dialog, attempting to educate readers about the scientific process.

For science writers ready to go beyond the basics, Glasser recommended taking courses in statistics, logic, philosophy of science, and history of science to become more knowledgeable about the implications and role of science in society.

To learn or relearn the basics, Wilkes recommended "The Elements of Style" by Strunk and White and "The Art and Craft of Feature Writing" by William Blundell. "With those two books, you don't need any more," he said.

Writing books