Should science writers specialize?
Igor Zolnerkevic
Monday, 26 November 2007 17:37 UTC
Hello,
Some science writers or journalists specialize in covering a certain branch of knowledge. For instance, Carl Zimmer covers Life Sciences while Philip Ball covers Physical Sciences. These science writers, however, still cover a large chunk of research. Others specialize even more, covering just one discipline like Astronomy or Medicine.
As a former Physics graduate student, I am more familiar with this field, more apt to spot a relevant research in the scientific journals, and so most of my stories are about Physics.
But the story I am most proud to have written is about Leaf-cutter Ant Physiology… That’s because, I guess, as a Biology dummy who hadn’t known what an Ectotherm animal was before I interviewed the biologists, I could imagine better what a layperson would need to know to understand the story and elicit better explanations.
Actually, I quited my research career and want to be a science writer because I realized I would rather “to know nothing about everything” than “everything about nothing”. But now, It seems to me that even a science writer must choose his/her areas of expertise.
What do you think it is the best career strategy? How did you choose your niche?
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
At Nature the science writers do have “beats” but they have to be able to cover everything, they can’t be too rigid about the subject matter boundaries.
Phil Ball does most often write in the physical sciences but he also writes on art (related to science), science publishing issues (for example, the H index for measuring citations) and he has certainly written on biological topics, too.
Nature employs far more editors than writers, and the editors have to edit on all topics, whatever their academic speciality. When we recruit, we look for people who are interested in all aspects of basic science. Many people who started as editors (including Phil Ball) have gone on to become writers. So editing, certainly on an interdisciplinary journal like Nature, is a great basis for writing skills. And indeed, many people do both, whether they are writing journalism, editorials, News and Views articles, reviews or books. -
For me the answer is very clear. Yes. And no.
If I take an example of one of my favourite science writers, Marcus Chown he sticks very solidly to a particular beat (though he will stray beyond cosmology into, say, quantum physics). Marcus succeeds by knowing his topic back to front (and being a good writer).
I, on the other hand, have to admit being a butterfly. The appeal of science writing to me is that I can write about what interests me, not necessarily about something I have any expertise in. I’ve written books, for instance, on infinity, quantum entanglement, the impact of global warming and light. What links them is not the subject matter, but rather an enthusiasm for explaining science to the general reader.
I suspect (with very little evidence) that specialization is more important for magazine writing, where you have to be able to pull out the expertise on cue, than it is in book writing, where you can take the time to research the topic, and what’s more important is the ability to temporarily absorb information on a scientific subject and translate it for a general audience.
-
Generalism is very rewarding. As you say, there’s a thrill in dipping your fingers in lots of different -ologies and it’s a great way to learn about new topics. I’m vaguely trying to teach myself neuroscience by writing about new papers for my blog.
Also, I don’t think that “covering Life Sciences” really counts as specialising. In that category, you’ve got ecology, evolution, genetics, biochemistry, psychology, neuroscience and a whole blend of other topics.
For my part, I write about absolutely anything where I can understand the primary paper to a reasonable degree (unless of course it’s an interview in which case anything goes). I don’t feel comfortable about explaining something to someone else if I don’t truly understand it myself.
-
Personally, I have learned far more about a particular topic by editing, say, a News and Views article written by a scientist into publishable form, which involved questioning the author about the piece and following each step of logic, thus really “getting my head round it”, than by reading a more ephemeral take on the same piece of work by a science writer who has written a piece on it in an hour or two. On average over a period of years, of course, there are exceptions!
-
Maxine, I agree with you. I was saying that it’s the act of writing that helps a generalist writer to get their head round a new topic. Even to write an “ephemeral take”, I think you need to be able to understand the topic well enough to be distill it down without losing any accuracy. I always end up doing a lot of background reading when I write up papers in topics I’m not entirely at home with.
I think we’re probably saying the same thing – you learn more from more active tasks like writing or editing than from reading.
-
Yes, I do agree, Ed. I didn’t mean to imply in my post that I was disagreeing with you before, sorry if it came over like that. I was just providing my own experience.
I think that the standard of science writing in, say, major newspapers is highly variable. Some of it is good, but some frankly rubbish—and at Nature we know very well which stories just “rehash our press release” and which show some signs of the writer doing what you describe! -
Hello everyone,
May I know if there is a course specializing in science writing?
-
Where are you?
There are certainly “specialist” courses in the UK and US.
For the UK, try this page on the ABSW’s web site:
http://absw.org.uk/courses.htm
It may not be up to date, not all courses tell us about changes, but it is a starting point.
-
Thank you very much Mr. Michael Kenward.
-
In developing countries like mine (India), where the discipline of science writing is not even a decade old, most writers are generalists. For instance, I have long been a hydra-headed writer dabbling in everything from fashion to films, crime to environment and politics to sports. But alongside all this, I have been consistent in reporting science.
Post media boom in this country, I have had the opportunity to pursue science journalism as a specialisation. Like you Iqor, I quit my masters to write. One advantage of being a generalist is that you have an edge over specialists in case you are considering becoming the editor of a science journal or portal, like Maxine rightly says!
A ‘fresh eye’, as we call it in journalistic parlance, always sees more than a trained eye. They taught us long back in journalism school that the best writers are those who start by presuming they don’t know much about the topic. Their pieces engage the readers most. Today, I can’t but pause to think how true this is.
Results
-