SCIENCE JOURNALISM REVIEWER

JR 225 - SCIENCE JOURNALISM

SCIENCE JOURNALISM - conveys reporting about science to the public. The field typically
involves interactions between scientists, journalists, and the public.

This involves writing informative and often entertaining summaries of relevant findings, consulting
with expert scientists and researchers and conveying the information in ways that a non-specialist
audience can understand.

The writer must be able to simplify complex ideas and jargon without losing accuracy.

Science Writers - What Are the Necessary Skills?

You need to be able to show:

 excellent written and oral communication skills

 a strong interest in science
 the ability to think logically and understand complex ideas and data
 good organizational and time management skills
 ability to work under pressure to deadlines
 resilience, flexibility, persistence and self-motivation

What to expect

 Work is primarily office based but visits to meet with clients or to interview experts may be
required.

 Science writers often work on a freelance basis, putting forward ideas for articles to science
editors and by getting 'on the books' as a regular freelance writer for one or more organizations.
If this applies to you, you may work from home or travel to company offices if you've been
contracted for a certain amount of work.

 Travel during the working day is common. Writers may also travel internationally to attend
conferences and visit clients.

Responsibilities
The particular activities you'll undertake depend on the nature of your role and who you're writing
for. Common activities include:

 producing articles for publication in print and online according to agreed style, and keeping to
strict deadlines

 conducting interviews with scientists, doctors and academics and establishing a network of
industry experts

 attending academic and press conferences

 visiting research establishments

 reading and researching specialist media and literature, e.g. scientific papers, company reports,
newspapers, magazines and journals, press releases and internet resources including social media

 attending meetings or taking part in conference calls with clients, scientists or other writers

 meeting with colleagues to plan the content of a document or publication

 reviewing and amending work in response to editor feedback

 selecting appropriate artwork to accompany articles

There are two basic categories of science writers: science journalists and science public information
officers (SPIOs). However, there is no single formula for making good science journalists. They can
be

(1) scientists who learn journalism,

(2) journalists who learn science, or

(3) scientists who pair up with journalists.

All paths can lead to great science journalism. The most important tip for
becoming a good journalist in any field is to be open to learning all the time

Science journalists may work for newspapers, wire services, magazines, book publishers, radio and
television networks and individual stations, digital news services and other independent information
channels.

These news media outlets may be either commercial, such as the local daily newspaper, or non-profit,
such as scientific societies that produce magazines, newsletters and online news services. (Science
journalists differ from technical writers, who prepare such materials as instruction manuals or reports
on new technologies for technical or trade magazines.)

Science values detail, precision, the impersonal, the technical, the lasting,
facts, numbers and being right.

Journalism values being concise, approximation, the personal, the colloquial,

the immediate, stories, words and being right now. There are going to be
tensions.

— Quentin Cooper, of BBC Radio 4’s Material World

Quentin Cooper is a science journalist and facilitator, who presented BBC Radio 4's Material World
from 2000 to 2013.

He speaks at science festivals and lectures, and works regularly with science and educational
organizations such as the Royal Society and the British Council.

- Science writers cover fields undergoing some of the most rapid advances in history, from stunning
advances in genetics and biotechnology to exotic discoveries in astrophysics.

A science writer's week may include coverage of new discoveries about viruses, the brain, evolution,
artificial intelligence, planets around other suns, and global climate change and its environmental
impact, to name only a few topics.

The daily challenge of accurately translating the often arcane and complex news of such discoveries
into lay language makes science writing distinctive. But in addition, science writers must also attempt
to put scientific discoveries and controversies into historical, personal, political, economic, and social
context.

Why is there a need for Science Journalism?

The aim of a science journalist is to render very detailed, specific, and often
jargon-laden information produced by scientists into a form that non-scientists
can understand and appreciate while still communicating the information
accurately.

Science writers play an essential role in advancing the social and political
conversation about science by communicating an independent assessment of
research discoveries.

Their reporting can bring exciting news of remarkable scientific achievements

to public attention while informing the public about critical issues to aid ethics
and policy debates.

Science communication is the practice of informing, educating, raising awareness of

science-related topics, and increasing the sense of wonder about scientific discoveries and arguments.

Science communication may generate support for scientific research or science education, and inform
decision making, including political and ethical thinking. It can likewise be an effective mediator
between the different groups and individuals that have a stake in public policy, industry, and civil
society. This may be especially
critical in addressing scientific misinformation, which spreads easily because it is not subject to the
constraints of scientific method.

There are four major objectives of public communication of science. According to The National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine the five general goals for science communication
were identified as:

 sharing recent findings and excitement for science

 increasing public appreciation of science
 increasing knowledge and understanding of science
 influencing the opinions, policy preferences or behavior of people, and
 ensuring that a diversity of perspectives about science held by different groups are considered
when solutions to societal problems are pursued
Two Paradigms of Science Communication

1.) Dissemination Paradigm - one-way transmission of information about science

from experts to the public as the appropriate way to communicate science.

2.) Public Participation Paradigm – uses dialogue and deliberation between the public,
experts and decision-makers as the proper way of engaging in science
communication.
 Education: teaching scientific concepts
 Information: help people stay updated
 Persuasion: convince people to change the way they think or behave
 Inspiration: sharing the marvel of science
 Entertainment: content that is fun and engaging

HOW THE PANDEMIC REMADE SCIENCE JOURNALISM

It’s no longer possible to separate science and politics
By: Tanya Lewis. March 1, 2022. Scientific American

When I first heard the reports of a “mysterious pneumonia” spreading in Wuhan, China, in January
2020, I thought I would write a story or two about it and move on to the next big medical news
development. As a health journalist, disease outbreaks are not a rare occurrence on my beat, and
most do not rise to the level of an international emergency. But the story of COVID-19 would turn
out to be unlike anything I had covered before or am likely—I hope—to ever cover again.

Reporting on the pandemic was like building a plane while flying it—at warp speed in a hurricane.
The underlying science was evolving daily, so there was no expert consensus or body of established
research to draw on. And there were plenty of people willing to exploit this information vacuum,
creating a secondary epidemic of misinformation.

Early on Chinese authorities suppressed information about the virus, and the Trump administration
downplayed its threat to the U.S. Testing blunders and shortages prevented this country from
recognizing the number of COVID cases circulating within its borders in the critical early phase when
we could have slowed its spread. And for months health authorities said SARS-CoV-2 was spread
primarily by symptomatic people through large respiratory droplets from a cough or a sneeze or by
contaminated surfaces (remember the now ridiculous-seeming grocery-disinfecting ritual?). That
guidance was based on how some other respiratory diseases circulate, but of course we now know
this novel coronavirus commonly spreads through aerosols that linger in the air, often exhaled by a
person showing no symptoms at all.

At the heart of science journalism is a focus on evidence. But one of the hardest lessons many other
journalists and I learned while reporting on COVID is that absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence—and that even advice from renowned public health authorities should sometimes be
questioned. Take face masks, for example: in the pandemic’s first crucial weeks, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization said the public did not need to
wear masks (despite the fact that medical workers and many people in Asia use them routinely to
protect against respiratory diseases). At the same time, CDC and WHO officials specifically told
people not to buy high-quality respirator masks because health-care workers needed them—
breeding confusion and mistrust.

At the time, I debated with my editor over whether to recommend that people wear masks, against
the guidance of these esteemed health agencies. I resisted doing so, in part out of deference to
these authorities and in part because of a lack of published studies that masks—especially
nonmedical ones—were protective for the wearer. In retrospect, I should have followed the
precautionary principle; in the absence of direct evidence, masks were a reasonable precaution to
protect against a respiratory virus. That episode highlighted for me just how challenging it can be
when the evidence is shifting in real time and even the experts can’t keep up. It wasn’t until two
years into the pandemic that the CDC and others finally started to emphasize the importance of
high-filtration masks, which had been abundantly available in the U.S. for many months.
It didn’t take long for bad actors to weaponized the confusion to spread misinformation. Patient
zero in this “infodemic” was Donald Trump. The former president routinely downplayed the virus’s
severity, calling it “no worse than the flu.” He blamed China, stoking xenophobia rather than urging
people to protect themselves and others. He mocked people who wore masks, politicizing a basic
public health measure, while promoting baseless COVID treatments. It wasn’t just Trump—Fox
News personalities and celebrities such as Joe Rogan and Aaron Rodgers have used their platforms
to spread falsehoods about the virus and the vaccines. As a health journalist, my job was no longer
purely about explaining the science—I now had to contend with politics and human behavior.
Actions as seemingly innocuous as wearing a mask or getting a vaccine to avoid getting a disease
had become political statements.

There has perhaps been no more consequential or bitter battleground in the U.S. epidemic than
vaccines. The anti-vax movement—a small faction but already a potent force before COVID—took
advantage of people’s hesitancy about the speed with which the new vaccines were developed to
spread lies and misinformation about their effects. COVID anti-vaxxers promoted their dangerous
claims under the guise of “freedom,” never acknowledging that it comes at the cost of people’s lives
and the freedom to live without threat of a deadly virus. As science journalists, it was not enough
just to report the facts and debunk misinformation—we had to engage with the reasons people
believe such falsehoods. We learned to use the latest research on how misinformation spreads to
try to expose lies without amplifying them and replace conspiracy theories with truth.

All of this has played out against the backdrop of vast inequities in access to vaccines and health
care, both nationwide and globally. One of the biggest lessons of the pandemic for many of us has
been that racism, not race, explains why COVID has been even more devastating for people of color.

The arrival of new viral variants further complicated messaging. The mRNA vaccines achieved an
effectiveness beyond any expert’s wildest dreams. But their protection waned over time, and they
have been less effective against the highly contagious Delta and Omicron variants, prompting a
return to mask wearing and a hastily implemented booster shot campaign. As I write this, Omicron
is spreading rapidly and overwhelming hospitals because it is so transmissible. As journalists, all we
can do is try to make sense of the evidence as it develops, hope in hindsight we made the right call,
and remind readers it’s normal, not bad, to update our knowledge as the virus—and our
understanding of it—evolves.

Reporting on COVID has fundamentally changed the way I approach science journalism. I have
gained a deeper appreciation for scientific knowledge as a process, not merely an end result. I have
seen that it is not enough to simply follow the science—that skepticism of authority is warranted
even when that authority comes from respected public health experts. And I have learned that
science is always political—despite what many scientists like to think. These lessons have been won
at a terrible expense. But failing to heed them could doom us to repeat this tragedy when the next
pandemic comes.

This article was originally published with the title "Science Journalism Shifted with New Realities" in
Scientific American 326, 3, 38-39 (March 2022)
 UNIT 2 – FINDING SCIENCE STORY IDEAS
INTERVIEWING SCIENTISTS.

What do you think is the most challenging character of a scientist?

Are you willing to argue/debate with a scientist/researcher?
How does a journalist act when interviewing a scientist/expert?

 Scientists are much more open but less agreeable than people in other professions. On the
plus side, they’re more likely to be intellectually curious, idealistic, and passionate than non-
scientists. But as a group, they also tend to be more rigid, cynical, and tactless.

 Using IBM Watson's Personality Insights tool. The study focused on five specific traits
(extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness) and five
values (helping others, tradition, taking pleasure in life, achieving success, and excitement).
The analysis revealed that scientists combine low agreeableness and low conscientiousness
with high openness.

 Within the sciences, a spectrum of personality traits emerged. Those dealing with more
abstract or inanimate things (mathematicians, geologists) were more open than those in the
life sciences (bio-statisticians, horticulturalists), who “tended to be more extroverted and
agreeable”

Interviewing the Scientist

 A new scientific study can be very long and complex and might contain a large amount of
information which would be hard to understand even if the reporter tasked with analyzing it
had a little pre-existing knowledge about the issue.

 Additionally, the journalist who is asked to interview a scientist is more likely to have been
chosen on the grounds of availability than due to their expertise in the field. Also, journalists
are often called upon to find scientists who are willing to speak and to conduct interviews with
them in a time period which does not allow for much preparation beforehand.

Things To Remember:

1. It is OK not to know everything.

When covering science, journalists learn very quickly that no matter how much time they spend
reading particular studies, they are never going to become experts in a scientific field. But the job
of the reporter is not to know what the answers are, but to know what questions need to be asked
so that ordinary members of the public can get those answers from scientific experts.

2. Be the resource that the readers need

A journalist needs to be aware of the information gap between themselves and the author of a
scientific study, or any other scientific expert. Reporters should be open about that, just as they
should be open about explaining which areas they are unsure about, and what concepts they do
not yet understand. After all, the main job of a journalist is to bridge that information gap, by
making important issues accessible to the widest possible audience.
3. Seek clarification where necessary

The most important thing a reporter can do is ask the scientist anything that he or she is not
completely sure of. Often, reporters come back from speaking to experts, and set out to start
writing, only to find that they have not understood the key points of what was discussed – simply
because they did not ask enough questions. Most of the time, it will be the really obvious
questions which they neglected to ask, possibly due to fear over looking ill-informed.

4. Insist on enough time

Scientists work under a lot of pressure too. A journalist might not be able to speak to the author of
a new study, for instance, and a scientist might only have a couple of minutes to spare, meaning
the interview will be a short one. Then, it’s time for honesty: the journalist should make it clear
that they cannot write the piece until they have gotten the information they need from the
scientist. While this might make the process somewhat slower, it is still far better than publishing
inaccurate or misleading information.

5. Build up contacts in the area of science

Journalism is a relationship business, and building a network of scientific contacts can be an

invaluable step in ensuring that a reporter can interview the right scientist at the right time. One
useful tip is to build close ties with press officers in universities and other scientific institutions.
These press officers will know the pressure that journalists are working under, just as they will
know which experts to point them towards.

6. Cross-check the facts and aim for balance

Fact-checking should be part of every journalist’s DNA, and the reporter should read as much as he
or she can about the scientific issue at hand, and weigh the merits of the science behind both sides
of any contentious issue before producing journalistic reports. One useful step before interviewing
a scientist is to research the contrary views which other scientists have put forward, and to include
questions about these views in the actual interview.

7. Consider the source

Before carrying out an interview or writing a news report, a journalist should not forget to
research where a scientist receives his or her funding from, and where the institution to which
they are attached receives their funding. Scientific research is made possible by the financial
support which researchers are given, and sometimes this financial support can cloud the findings
in a study, or affect how those findings are represented to the outside world. There is nothing
wrong with a scientist receiving funding to engage in research, but it is always worth asking the
question about where that funding comes from, or whether the organization providing it has their
own agenda.
Interview Questions for Research Scientists:

1. How would you secure research funding?

Evaluates grant writing and gainful networking skills.

2. Which techniques would combat the heavily extractive nature of research?

Highlights thoughtfulness about beneficence.

3. How would you mitigate the influence of undetectable extraneous variables?

Discerns research design and problem-solving capacities.

4. How would you promote the accessibility of your findings?

Evaluates science communication techniques.

5. What would you do if you detected a consequential error in your publication?

Illustrates morals and the propensity to amend or retract publicly accessible ouput.

Top questions and tips for interviewing scientists

Probe a little - Things like “what do you mean by that?” or “why was that?”, or “how did that come
about?”, or even “wow, tell me more!”. One aspect of a natural conversation is that one person
will ask short ‘follow-up questions’ which act as responses to what the other person has said.
These only come naturally if you’re listening to the other person, and you’re genuinely interested
in what they say. Listen, and respond as you would while chatting with a friend.

Summarizing their research - “What’s the take-home message of this research?” or “if you had to
summarize this research into a snappy soundbite, what would it be?”Avoid getting researchers to
explain that paper in-depth, for two reasons: Firstly, don’t waste time in the interview getting
details you can read in the paper. Secondly, they may provide a long-winded response which will
be unusable for something destined for a general lay audience.

Top questions and tips for interviewing scientists

Understand the context - The answers to these questions could be used to ‘set the scene’ in
whatever you’re writing/putting together. It helps to set out the problem that’s being solved by
this research.

 What did we know about ___ before this work?

 How were we doing ___ before?
 Why did this research need to be done?

You could also follow up the answers up with questions to understand how other people saw their
work. The answer might reveal whether it was a controversial idea, or something long overdue –
either way, it’s a useful context. For example:

 How did people respond when you told them what you were doing?
 Did other scientist take some convincing of your approach?
 Did anyone disagree with what you were doing?
Thinking about dramatic elements of the story: there’s a start, middle, and end. Ask them to take
you back to the beginning, the instigating event which started them on their journey:

 Can you take us back to the beginning – when did this study/project come about?
 How did the idea come about?
 When did you get involved in this work?
 What was the first step you made in this project?

Top questions and tips for interviewing scientists

You could ask them about the quest, and the struggles they had to overcome:

 How did the work go? Was it all smooth sailing?

 What was the hardest part of this project?
 Were there any setbacks?
 What hurdles did you have to overcome?

Finally, you could ask them about the climax, the moment of truth where they make the discovery:

 What was the first sign when you got the results you’d been hoping for?
 When did you realize that your plan had worked?
 Storytelling In Science
Is it possible to have storytelling in science?

Scientific Storytelling

The idea of storytelling in science is a perfectly reasonable way to approach writing scientific
observations. Research is not all about charts and figures.

Well-written research can be composed to create a captivating story. The words are impactful to
the reader because they make the presented research more comprehensive. As a result, there
is a story-like presentation that can capture the attention of children and adults. A truly captivating
scientific research paper has the potential to challenge the creativity and writing ability of the
researcher, and maintain the interest of the readers.

Storytelling often has a bad reputation within science because it is viewed as baseless or even
manipulative.

However, when the context moves from data collection to the communication of science to non
expert audiences, stories; anecdotes, and narratives become not only more appropriate but
potentially more important.

Research suggests that narratives are easier to comprehend and audiences find them more
engaging than traditional logical-scientific communication.

Fiction and Science

Just as a fictional story can be enchanting, storytelling in science can also be enticing.

Research papers written in a story-like fashion can be just as captivating.

Every story has six key story elements: character(s), a setting, tension, action, climax, and a
resolution.

A research paper, written in the format of a story, has those same elements.

Because media practitioners have to compete for the attention of their audiences, they routinely
rely on stories, anecdotes, and other narrative formats to cut through the information clutter and
resonate with their audiences.

Although the plural of anecdote may not be data, the anecdote has a greater chance of reaching
and engaging with a non-expert audience.
The Narrative Arc

Also known as the story arc, this describes the shape of the change in value, whether rise or fall,
over the course of the story.

The 5-Point Narrative Arc

1. Exposition: This is the beginning of the story in which characters are introduced and the setting
is revealed. It includes who, where, and when.

You introduce the main subject (example, a new drug that can cure dementia) that will boost the
story, such as the degradation of the brain when a person reaches 65.

2. Rising Action: In this element, a series of events that complicate matters for the protagonist (in
this case, the product) creates a rise in the story's suspense ortension.

The rising action can be the conflict between the main component of the drug that is from the
bone marrow of the komodo dragon, an endangered specie, and the clamor for the drug
availability. This part will contain a series of surprises or complications to which your reader will
react.

3. Climax: This is the point of greatest tension in the story and the turning point in the narrative arc
from rising action to falling action.

You can either side with the komodo dragon’s illegal capture and debauchery, or to the 55 million
seniors who still want to create memories in their twilight years. Your chosen characters must be
deeply involved in the conflict.

4. Falling Action: After the climax, events unfold in a story's plot and there is a release of tension
leading toward the resolution. It can show how the characters have been changed due to the
conflict and their actions or inactions.

If you choose the case of the debauchery of the komodo dragon, this is where you will explain the
details of how he is captured and placed in science labs for bone marrow extraction. Add details,
emotional content, and storyline that will tug at the heart strings of the reader.

5. Resolution: This is the end of the story, typically, in which the problems of the story and of the
protagonists are resolved. The ending doesn't have to be a happy one, but in a complete story, it
will be one that feels satisfying.
State how life is not measured by the number of years you live in this earth, but by the life in those
years. Mention how the cycle of life is a natural process wherein the brain shrunks in volume, thus
memory decline also occurs with ageing and brain activation becomes more bilateral for memory
tasks. Push for the idea that the youngsters must be taking care of their senior relatives as a loving
duty of child towards a parent.

Then end your science story with a question: “Is it really worth killing a thousand and more
dragons in order to save memories that will naturally fade?”

4. Falling Action: After the climax, events unfold in a story's plot and there is a release of tension
leading toward the resolution. It can show how the characters have been changed due to the
conflict and their actions or inactions.

If you choose the case of the debauchery of the komodo dragon, this is where you will explain the
details of how he is captured and placed in science labs for bone marrow extraction.

Add details, emotional content, and storyline that will tug at the heart strings of the reader.

5. Resolution: This is the end of the story, typically, in which the problems of the story and of the
protagonists are resolved. The ending doesn't have to be a happy one, but in a complete story, it
will be one that feels satisfying.

State how life is not measured by the number of years you live in this earth, but by the life in those
years. Mention how the cycle of life is a natural process wherein the brain shrinks in volume, thus
memory decline also occurs with ageing and brain activation becomes more bilateral for memory
tasks. Push for the idea that the youngsters must be taking care of their senior relatives as a loving
duty of child towards a parent.

Then end your science story with a question: “Is it really worth killing a thousand and more
dragons in order to save memories that will naturally fade?”

POINTERS FOR THE MIDTERM EXAMINATION:

1.) Science Journalism VS Science Communication

2.) Science in the Media

3.) Responsibilities of a Science Journalist

4.) Skills of a Science Journalist

5.) Interviewing Journalists

6.) Storytelling in Science

7.) How The Pandemic Remade Science

8.) Watch: Don’t Look Up

MOST COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF CONFUSED TERMS IN
PSYCHOLOGY Source: Lilienfield, S. (2017). 50 Differences That Make a Difference: A Compendium of Frequently Confused
Term Pairs in Psychology.
1.) Anti-Social VS Antisocial people perform actions  Asocial people chronically withdraw 
Asocial against others, frequently engaging  from others due to shyness or not 
in reckless, irresponsible, and at  being interested in interpersonal 
times illegal behaviors. contact.

2.) Prejudice VS Prejudice refers to a belief. Discrimination refers to behavior. 

Discrimination prejudice means arriving at a It refers to the act of treating
premature – and usually negative – others  poorly as a function of this
judgment ofRisj others based on membership. While both are bad, 
their membership in one or more you’d probably prefer that your
categories (e.g., African-American, boss  be prejudiced.
Jew, obese, Republican)

3.) Disease VS Illness Disease is the specific pathology or  Illness is the afflicted
malfunctioning of a body part. individual’s  reactions to the
disease.

4.) Anxiety VS Fear Anxiety is associated with negative Fear is associated with negative
affect in the presence of an affect in the presence of an
ambiguous and potentially avoidable imminent and largely unavoidable
threat. Even after the threat is gone, threat. After the threat is gone, fear
anxiety tends to persist. tends to diminish or disappear.

5.) Delusion VS Delusions are fixed false beliefs  Hallucinations are perceptual 
Hallucination that are not widely shared by  experiences that occur in the 
members of the individual’s culture  absence of any sensory
or subculture. stimulation.

6.) Symptom VS Sign Symptoms are subjective and must  Signs are largely objective and
be reported by patients. can  be observed by clinicians and 
others.

7.) Testing VS Psychological testing refers to  Psychological assessment refers 

Assessment administration of self-report indices,  to the integration and interpretation 
interviews, intelligence tests and  of test scores, almost always in
other measures to individuals. conjunction with other information 
(e.g., life history data, behavioral 
observations during testing) to
draw  inferences concerning the
individual’s mental status.

8.) Coma VS Vegetative People in a coma are unable to People in a persistent vegetative 
State respond to external stimulation, state lack normal awareness of the 
such as light or sound; cannot be self and environment, but retain
awakened, respond to verbal the  sleep-wake cycle as well as
commands, or initiate purposeful certain  reflexes and automatic
actions; and lack a normal sleep responses  such as yawning,
wake cycle. A coma typically lasts grimacing,
less than a month, after which the moaning, and opening eyes during 
person emerges with no or varying feeding. PVS can last for many
degrees of brain damage. years  and cause permanent
cognitive and  functional disability.

9.) Stressor VS Stress Stressor refers to an event that  Stress is what the person feels in 
causes stress. It is external, which  response to a stressor. It is
means it comes from the outside. internal,  and comes from one’s
subjective  experience.
10.) Schizophrenia VS Schizophrenia is characterized by  a Multiple Personality Disorder,
Multiple  Personality severe splitting of functions, such  as is  when the individual’s mind
Disorder cognition, emotion, and harbors  two or more distinct
motivation, within a single person.  personalities.
The breakdown between thoughts, 
emotions, and behavior leads to 
bizarre and inappropriate behavior 
and beliefs.