PUBPOL 381S-01
ENVIRON 364S-01
PJMS 381S-01
Science and the Media: Coverage of Science, Health and Policy in Print and Online
Fall 2014: STORIES ABOUT FACTS; TRUTHS ABOUT LIES; LIES ABOUT TRUTHS
This version updated: 15 August 2014
Time and location
3:05-4:20PM Monday and Wednesday
First day of class: Monday August 25
Last day of class: Wednesday December 3
No class: October 13, November 12, November 26
Location: Levine Science Research Center Room D243
Instructor
Misha Angrist, PhD, MFA
North Building 237
Duke University
Durham, NC 27708-0222
Phone: 684-2872
E-mail: misha.angrist@duke.edu
Office hours
Fall 2014
After class or by appointment
1
Course description
Those who write about science, health and related policy matters for a general audience face a
formidable challenge: to make complex, nuanced ideas understandable to the nonscientist in a limited
amount of space and in ways that are engaging and entertaining, even if the topic is far outside the
reader's frame of reference. What does good science writing look like and what can we hope to get
from it as readers and citizens, whether it's a 10-word tweet on climate change, a 200-word wire story
on adult stem cells, a 500-word blog post on scientific fraud, or a 10,000-word piece in Harper's or
The New York Times Magazine on the evolutionary basis of religion? Or a book? Remember books
made from dead trees? And what happens to science stories as they make their way from the lab to the
public? And what constitutes “the public” anyway? Those are among the central questions of this
course.
We will examine different modes of science writing: the profile of a scientist at work, the investigative
report, the courtroom drama, the reflective essay, the polemic, the pithy "news and views" feature, the
op-ed, and the policy forum, among others. We will discuss different outlets for publication―science
magazines and journals, books, newspapers, trade magazines, popular magazines, and the vast number
of online science blogs and other websites―and explore the peculiar editorial demands each places on
the writer. We will consider multiple narrative approaches and various traps science writers may fall
into: cheerleading, oversimplification, determinism (e.g., "a gene for X"), and balance at the expense
of accuracy. We will examine one or more hot-button stories and the ways in which the science was
transformed into easily digestible narratives, sometimes at the cost of accuracy. We will also discuss
the proliferation of free online content and the ongoing slow-motion death (near-death?) spiral of the
newspaper industry and how those factors have changed the career trajectories of many science
writers. The impact of online science writing on the profession (such as it is) can hardly be overstated.
As part of a small seminar, the expectation is that everyone will do the reading and come to class
prepared to explore what they’ve read in depth. And because we want to understand science writing,
which is to say, writing, we will try to avail ourselves of every opportunity to walk the walk, that is, to
write. To that end, there are ten short writing assignments during the semester. They are not optional
and they must not be late. Most are profiles of our guests. As a class we will interview every guest
speaker. From those interviews, every student will prepare a brief profile (a few hundred words—2-3
pages MAX) of the speaker and his/her ideas. A few short assignments are annotations of the readings.
Annotations should recapitulate and analyze the readings and should be buttressed by examples from
the text(s). If you miss class on the day we interview a guest or if a guest doesn’t show, then you must
submit an annotation of that person’s work. Short written assignments will be graded on a scale of 0 to
3. If you want to submit eleven short assignments and drop your lowest one, that’s fine. Finally, every
student will submit a major piece of writing, about which more will be said below.
The general idea is to write and then to write some more. If you hate to write, or if even the prospect
of feeling glorious after you’ve written something decent is not appealing, then this class is probably
going to bring you down. “All writing is rewriting” is a tired cliché, but that doesn’t make it any less
true. Practice may or may not make perfect, but it certainly makes better. In the words of the short
story writer and novelist Ron Carlson, “The writer is the one who has written today.”
All students are expected to have settled on the subject of their final profile by Wednesday
September 24 and to begin immersing themselves accordingly. More on that below.
Readings
Required texts (purchase at any bookstore or order online):
 Randerson J. Science & Environmental Journalism: A 60-Minute Masterclass. (2014) London:
Guardian Books. (note: this is an eBook available on Kindle via Amazon)
2



Writers of SciLance. The Science Writers' Handbook: Everything You Need to Know to Pitch,
Publish, and Prosper in the Digital Age (Thomas Hayden and Michelle Nijhuis, editors).
(2013) Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.
Malcolm, J. Iphigenia in Forest Hills: Anatomy of a Murder Trial. (2012) New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Zinsser W. On Writing Well, 30th Anniversary Edition: The Classic Guide to Writing
Nonfiction (or any recent edition) (2006) New York: Harper.
All other readings are available online. You are expected to track down the readings using your
intrepid library and search engine skills. This should not be difficult. You have access to one of the
finest research libraries and the best librarians in the world. Use them. In addition to Zinsser, I urge
you to purchase one or more style guides, whether it’s Strunk & White’s classic The Elements of Style
or something more contemporary and less fuddy-duddy-ish. There are a number of terrific and nonpedantic grammar books on the market as well. I like Sleeping Dogs Don’t Lay by Lederer and Dowis
and Woe is I by O’Conner.
Grades
Grades will be based on class participation (30%), written assignments (10 x 3 = 30%) and on the final
paper (40%).
CLASS PARTICIPATION IS TAKEN SERIOUSLY. In a small seminar, no one has the luxury of
being a passenger. To pretend otherwise would be to sentence us all to death by ennui; a cruel if not
unusual demise. The purpose of this is not for me to be the didactic lecturer handing down faux (or
even real) wisdom from on high—even I get bored with me, so imagine how you’ll feel. Our purpose
is for you to drive the discussion, and in doing so to show me that you have thought about what you’ve
read and to provoke your classmates to do the same. If you’re painfully shy, then this course will
likely be painful for you.
Obviously, one cannot participate if one does not ATTEND CLASS. I hope you will attend every
class meeting. If you miss more than 3 meetings, it will cost you 10 percent of your grade for each one
you miss. The same goes for 3 late assignments. I deeply regret having to be the bad cop because if a
month or two from now you decide you don’t really want to be here, then either 1) you are not
invested in the subject or 2) I have not done/am not doing my job. Both prospects pain me.
About that final paper: you will conduct original reportage leading to a substantive feature (for
example, work being done by scientists at Duke, UNC, NCSU or in RTP). I urge you to invest in a
digital recorder, especially if, like me, you are not a good or legible note-taker—they can be had for <
$20.
I am less concerned about length than I am about quality—whatever you write should be long enough
to develop its narrative argument(s) and tell its story…but not a word longer. Whether it’s 3000 words
or 10,000, I expect that it will be fluid and coherent, that most every sentence will sparkle, that you
will have written and re-written again and again. By 26 September, I should have met with each of
you to discuss what you want to do for your final project. By early November I should have a
draft. By the week after Thanksgiving you will have submitted your final paper in whatever
form and be prepared to read from it and discuss it with your classmates.
To help achieve this lofty goal, I encourage each of you to avail yourselves of the Reader Project, a
joint effort between the Thompson Writing Program and the Office of Alumni Affairs. Essentially, the
program offers you a chance to get feedback from Duke staff, faculty and/or alums on your paper. We
3
will discuss this in detail during the first couple of class sessions. The Thompson Writing Program
also offers The Writing Studio, which we’ll hear about early in the semester.
Academic integrity
As a matter of formality I will say it only once: Don’t plagiarize. Plagiarism is stealing. For a writer it
is arguably the highest of crimes. Perhaps worse, it suggests laziness. If you use other people’s ideas,
then attribute those ideas to those people. Acknowledge them, just as you would have them tip their
caps to you if they used your ideas. By all means, write like John McPhee or, if you must, Natalie
Angier. But don’t steal content from them or anyone else. And don’t make shit up: You can lie to your
parents, but not to your readers.
Tentative course schedule (guaranteed to change)
M Aug 25
Introduction: Coverage of Science in the Print and Online Media
 Course logistics and housekeeping; review of syllabus; Q&A
 Note-taking and digital recorders
 Library skills and computer use
 Kolbert E. “Old Bugs.” The New Yorker, 30 June 2014.
W Aug 27
What is Science Writing?
 Science & Environmental Journalism, locations 4 through 344.
 The Science Writers’ Handbook, pp. 40-52, 59-74.
 On Writing Well, pp. 3-48.
 Boynton R. Preface and Introduction. The New New Journalism: Conversations with
America's Best Nonfiction Writers on Their Craft (2005). New York: Vintage, pp. xi-xxxiv.
 Fleischman J, Szalinski C. So you want to be a science writer. Mol Biol Cell. 2014 Jul
1;25(13):1938-41.
 SWH/Boynton/Zinsser annotation due Wed Aug 27 @ noon
M Sep 1
What is Journalism and is it Intrinsically Icky?: Janet Malcolm
 Malcolm J. (2012) Iphigenia in Forest Hills: Anatomy of a Murder Trial, pp. 1-84
W Sep 3
What is Journalism and is it Intrinsically Icky? Janet Malcolm
 Malcolm annotation due Wed Sep 3 @ noon
 Malcolm J. (2012) Iphigenia in Forest Hills: Anatomy of a Murder Trial, pp. 85-163
 Malcolm J. “What Happened to Michelle in Forest Hills?” New York Review of Books, 22
November 2012.
 Malcolm J. “The Fate of Michelle Malakova: ‘Oppositional Behavior.’” New York Review of
Books, 6 December 2012.
 Malcolm J. “Michelle: Surviving in a Fixed World.” New York Review of Books, 22 December
2012.
M Sep 8
What is Journalism and is it Intrinsically Icky? Janet Malcolm
 Markowitz M. “Trials: On Janet Malcolm.” The Nation 6 June 2011
http://www.thenation.com/article/160776/trials-janet-malcolm
4


Roiphe K. “Janet Malcolm, The Art of Nonfiction No. 4.” The Paris Review No. 196, Spring
2011 http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6073/the-art-of-nonfiction-no-4-janetmalcolm
Gregory A. “I Read Everything Janet Malcolm Ever Published.” Slate 3 May
2013.http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_completist/2013/05/janet_malcolm_review_forty_
one_false_starts_journalist_and_the_murderer.html
W Sep 10
What is science and how can science writers interpret it?
 Science & Environmental Journalism, locations 364 through 641.
 The Science Writers’ Handbook, pp. 53-58.
 Goozner M. It's time for better healthcare journalism. Mod Healthc. 2014 Jan 6;44(1):22.
 Casagrand T. “Data Journalism: A Primer for Science Journalists.” The Open Notebook. 25
February 2014. http://www.theopennotebook.com/2014/02/25/data-journalism-for-sciencejournalists/
 Sample I. “How to write a science news story based on a research paper.” The Guardian. 28
March 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/28/news-story-research-paperwellcome-trust-science-writing-prize
 Feldman J. “Interpreting academic studies: A primer for media.” Journalist’s Resource. 27
May 2014. http://journalistsresource.org/skills/research/interpreting-academic-studies-primermedia
 Barton A. “Health literacy 101: The science of how to read the science.” The Globe and Mail.
13 July 2014. http://ht.ly/z6o5N
M Sep 15
Recognizing bad science
 Cyranoski annotation due Monday 15 Sep @ noon
 Cyranoski D. Acid bath offers easy path to stem cells. Nature. 2014 Jan 30;505(7485):596.
 Cyranoski D. Acid-bath stem-cell study under investigation. Nature News. 2014 Feb 17.
http://www.nature.com/news/acid-bath-stem-cell-study-under-investigation-1.14738
 Cyranoski D. Call for acid-bath stem-cell paper to be retracted. Nature News Blog. 2014 Mar
10. http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/03/call-for-acid-bath-stem-cell-paper-to-beretracted.html
 Cyranoski D. Stem-cell method faces fresh questions. Nature. 2014 Mar 20;507(7492):283.
 Cyranoski D. Mismatch alleged in acid-bath stem-cell experiment. Nature News. 2014 Mar
27. http://www.nature.com/news/mismatch-alleged-in-acid-bath-stem-cell-experiment1.14946
 Cyranoski D. Biologist defiant over stem-cell method. Nature. 2014 Apr 17;508(7496):299.
 Cyranoski D. Investigator of controversial stem-cell study resigns. Nature News Blog. 2014
Apr 25. http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/04/investigator-of-controversial-stem-cell-studyresigns.html
 Anonymous. STAP retracted. Nature. 2014 Jul 3;511(7507):5-6.
 Cyranoski D. Research integrity: Cell-induced stress. Nature. 2014 Jul 10;511(7508):140-3.
 Cyranoski D. Stem-cell pioneer blamed media 'bashing' in suicide note. Nature News. 2014
Aug 13. http://www.nature.com/news/stem-cell-pioneer-blamed-media-bashing-in-suicidenote-1.15715
W Sep 17
5
Ivan Oransky
 Oransky I. “How to avoid ‘he-said-she-said’ science journalism.” Not Exactly Rocket Science.
18 February 2010. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/02/18/how-toavoid-he-said-she-said-science-journalism/#.U8LTm6iT41g
 Oransky I. “How can institutions prevent scientific misconduct?” Retraction Watch. 16 July
2012.
 Oransky I. “The Problem With Health Sites and Other Medical Resources.” Pacific Standard.
1 July 2013. http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/study-health-sites-toocomplex-full-of-cliches-61038/
 Oransky I. “If you must use embargoes, here’s how to do it right.” Epidemiology, Biostatistics
and Public Health. 2013 10(3): e9043-1 – e9043-3. http://ebph.it/article/view/9043/8190
 Oransky I. “‘Barriers to retraction may impede correction of the literature:’ New study.”
Retraction Watch. 16 June 2014. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/16/barriers-to-retractionmay-impede-correction-of-the-literature-new-study/
 Marcus A. and Oransky I. “Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters.” New York Times. 10 July
2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/opinion/crack-down-on-scientificfraudsters.html?_r=0
M Sep 22
Ivan Oransky II
 Interview Ivan Oransky
W Sep 24
Heartbreak, Policy, Data, Character, Story: Atul Gawande
 Gawande A. “Letting Go.” The New Yorker. 2 August 2010, pp. 36-49.
 McKee R. “Structure and Character.” Story: Substance, Structure, Style and the Principles of
Screenwriting (1997). New York: itbooks-HarperCollins, pp. 100-109.
 Oransky profile due Wednesday 24 September @ noon
 FINAL PROFILE SUBJECTS DUE
M Sep 29
Abby Olena
 Olena A. “Suppressing Drug-Seeking Behaviors.” The Scientist. 24 November 2013.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38431/title/Suppressing-Drug-SeekingBehaviors/
 Olena A. “Really Bad Breath.” The Scientist. 3 January 2014. http://www.thescientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38783/title/Really-Bad-Breath/
 Olena A. “New School.” The Scientist. 1 February 2014. http://www.thescientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38979/title/New-School/
 Olena A. “Imaging Musical Improv.” The Scientist. 21 February 2014. http://www.thescientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39246/title/Imaging-Musical-Improv/
 Olena A. “Going Long.” The Scientist. 1 April 2014. http://www.thescientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39497/title/Going-Long/
 Olena A. “Does Brain Training Work?” The Scientist. 21 April 2014. http://www.thescientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39768/title/Does-Brain-Training-Work-/
 Interview Abby Olena
W Oct 1
 MISHA AWAY—WATCH: Page One: Inside the New York Times
6

Olena profile due Wednesday 1 October @ noon
M Oct 6
Ed Yong I
 Yong E. Out-of-body experience: Master of illusion. Nature. 2011 Dec 7;480(7376):168-70.
 Yong E. Will we ever... decode dreams? BBC. 22 February 2012.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120208-will-we-ever-decode-dreams
 Yong E. One Molecule for Love, Morality, and Prosperity? Slate. 17 July 2012.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/07/oxytocin_is_not
_a_love_drug_don_t_give_it_to_kids_with_autism_.single.html
 Yong E. “How the Science of Swarms Can Help Us Fight Cancer and Predict the Future.”
Wired. 19 March 2013. http://www.wired.com/2013/03/powers-of-swarms/all/
 Yong E, Ledford H, Van Noorden R. Research ethics: 3 ways to blow the whistle. Nature.
2013 Nov 28;503(7477):454-7.
 Yong E. Oxytocin Boosts Dishonesty. The Scientist. 31 March 2014. http://www.thescientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39595/title/Oxytocin-Boosts-Dishonesty/
 Yong E. “Social Spiders Pick The Best Careers For Their Personalities.” Not Exactly Rocket
Science. 16 June 2014. http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/06/16/social-spiderspick-the-best-careers-for-their-personalities/
W Oct 8
Ed Yong II
 Interview Ed Yong
 Ed Yong profile due Monday 13 October @ noon
M Oct 13
FALL BREAK—NO CLASS
W Oct 15
Michael Lewis I
 Lewis M. “The No-Stats All-Star.” The New York Times Magazine. 15 February 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 Lewis M. “Beware of Greeks Bearing Bonds.” Vanity Fair. October 2010.
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/10/greeks-bearing-bonds-201010
 Dobbs D. “‘Why’s this so good?’” No. 15: Michael Lewis’ Greek odyssey.” Nieman
Storyboard. 11 October 2011. http://www.niemanstoryboard.org/2011/10/11/whys-this-sogood-no-15-michael-lewis-greeks-bearing-bonds-david-dobbs/
 Boynton R. “Michael Lewis.” In: The New New Journalism: Conversations with America's
Best Nonfiction Writers on Their Craft (2005). New York: Vintage, pp. 248-270.
M Oct 20
MISHA AWAY—WATCH: Project Nim
W Oct 22
Michael Lewis II
 Further discussion of Michael Lewis with guest discussant David Dobbs
 Michael Lewis annotation due Wednesday 22 October @ noon
M Oct 27
Paige Williams I
 Williams P. “Bones of Contention.” The New Yorker. 28 January 2013.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/01/28/130128fa_fact_williams?currentPage=all
7


Aschwanden C. “Paige Williams investigates a dinosaur fossil underworld.” The Open
Notebook. 26 March 2013. http://www.theopennotebook.com/2013/03/26/paige-williamsdinosaur/
Williams P. “The Black Market for Dinosaurs.” The New Yorker.com. 7 June 2014.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/06/the-black-market-fordinosaurs.html
W Oct 29
Paige Williams II
 Interview Paige Williams
M Nov 3
Carl Elliott
 Williams profile due Monday November 3 @ noon
 Elliott, C. “Guinea Pigging.” The New Yorker. 7 January 2008.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/07/080107fa_fact_elliott
 Couzin-Frankel J. A lonely crusade. Science. 2014 May 23;344(6186):793-7.
 Elliott C. “Is Big Pharma Testing Your Meds on Homeless People?” Matter. 28 July 2014.
https://medium.com/matter/did-big-pharma-test-your-meds-on-homeless-people-a6d8d3fc7dfe
 Interview Carl Elliott
W Nov 5
Duncan Murrell
 Murrell M. “Among the Pyros.” IN PRESS
 Interview Duncan Murrell
M Nov 10
Ginny Hughes
 Elliott and/or Murrell profile due Monday November 10 @ noon
 Hughes V. The disease olympics. Nat Med. 2013 Mar;19(3):257-60.
 Hughes V. “Detachment.” Aeon. 29 July 2013. http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/canresearch-on-romanian-orphans-be-ethical/
 Hughes V. “The Big Sell.” Slate. 11 October 2013.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_genome/2013/10/brain_mapping_pr
oject_how_the_human_genome_project_mastered_big_science.html
 Hughes V. “Arrested development.” Mosaic. 20 May 2014.
http://mosaicscience.com/story/arrested-development
 Hughes V. Weight-loss surgery: A gut-wrenching question. Nature. 2014 Jul
17;511(7509):282-4.
 Interview Ginny Hughes
W Nov 12
MISHA AWAY—work on your profiles!
M Nov 17
Deborah Blum
 Hughes profile due Monday November 17 @ noon
 Blum D. “Poison and progress.” The Wall Street Journal. 23 January 2010.
http://on.wsj.com/1t7wx5a
8





Blum D. “The poisoner’s guide to storytelling.” Soapbox Science. 25 January 2012.
http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2012/01/25/the-poisoners-guide-to-storytelling?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureBlogs
Blum D. “The strange deaths of two sisters in Thailand.” Elemental. 4 September 2012.
http://www.wired.com/2012/09/the-strange-deaths-of-two-sisters-in-thailand/
Blum D. “Poisoning our pets.” Elemental. 20 March 2014.
http://www.wired.com/category/elemental/
Blum D. “Chocolate as poison.” Elemental. 14 February 2014.
http://www.wired.com/2014/02/poisonous-chocolate/
Blum D. “Flame retardants are everywhere.” Poison Pen. 1 July 2014.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/flame-retardants-areeverywhere/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
W Nov 19
Brian Malow
 Malow B. “'A Virus Walks Into a Bar...' and Other Science Jokes.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7DkeQ0roAM
 Interview Brian Malow
M Nov 24
Good Night and Good Luck
 Readings from final projects
W Nov 26
THANKSGIVING BREAK—NO CLASS
M Dec 1
Good Night and Good Luck
 Readings from final projects
W Dec 3
Good Night and Good Luck
 Readings from final projects
 Evaluations
9