Elaborated Tips for Scientists and Journalists
Geoff Reeves:
Dr. Reeves is a senior scientist in the Space Science and Applications group at Los Alamos National
Laboratory. Dr. Reeves has studied the space environment, its effects on satellites, and the applications
to national security. He is an expert in Space Weather – the field that studies how solar activity produces
changes in the Van Allen radiation belts and near-Earth space environment. He has been a major
contributor to both NASA and national security space missions.
For scientists and journalists suggests - Find ways to communicate science results without a news
"event" to hang them on. Many of the coolest advances in science don't get covered because scientists
and/or journalists don't consider it "news"
Find the balance between "technically correct" and "technically honest". It's common to hear
scientists say "that's not technically correct" meaning there's some nuance, detail, or caveat that isn't
described completely. My experience is that it's possible to be technically "honest" (i.e. not saying
anything that is clearly wrong or misleading) without being totally complete. However, scientists need
help knowing where that line is.
For journalists: Write about the mystery, not the “hype.” It is okay to tell readers there are still
unknowns about scientific research. Write about what’s known and what isn’t. Don’t jump to
conclusion with one “event.”
Don’t necessarily read the scientific study (he and Fleck differ on this). Instead, buy a scientist a beer
or three, then get them to explain their research.
John Fleck:
Fleck has been a journalist since he could drink legally, and has written about science and related topics
for the Albuquerque Journal since 1990. He's a media fellow and contributing editor at Stanford
University's Bill Lane Center for the American West. His specialty is water science, politics and policy.
He's won numerous science writing awards.
For both - If it's possible, enlist bright grad students in the conversation. They're often the ones in the
lab/field doing the work, which makes for good color about the process of science. But they're also
closer to the naive journalist's understanding of the topic, because they're relatively new to it
themselves.
For journalists - Read the paper. Go to Google Scholar and find related work to look at. In a specialized
field, you may not fully understand it, but you'll have a better grasp of what you don't understand.
Often you'll need metaphors. Enlist the scientist's help in crafting them. This will ensure that they
don't mislead, but also creates a kind of middle ground for conversation about technical topics.
Link the uncertainty of scientific research to the uncertainty of people’s everyday lives.
Harshini Mukundan:
Dr. Mukundan is a biomedical scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, researching and developing
biosensors and diagnostic tests for pathogens. She is currently a member of the Physical Chemistry and
Applied Spectroscopy group working on new diagnostics for STEC, a virulent type of E. Coli bacteria, and
on tuberculosis biomarkers. Mukundan also is a mentor to post-doctoral students and a chemistry
division bio-safety specialist. In 2011 she received a LANL Technology Transfer Award for her work in
developing biosensors for detecting disease-related biomarkers and was named a Fellow of the
Laboratory Consortium.
Be aware of the fact that what a particular word means in scientific jargon is often different from
what it means to the layman (or even a scientist from a different field of expertise)
Have a scientist review a science-based article for accuracy. Scientists do not share the freedom that
journalists have to speculate. Any unsubstantiated statements might result in them losing face with their
peers. This threat prevents scientists from reaching out to journalists.
Faulty stories spread and go viral, which can have a profound effect on the public. Be careful and
double check scientific information in news stories before using it in another story or simply Tweeting it.
Laura Paskus:
Paskus is an independent writer and editor who also reports and produces radio stories for the
Conservation Beat on KUNM 89.9. She has been covering water, climate change, wildlife, environmental
justice, and energy in New Mexico since 2002, when she started working as assistant editor at High
Country News. Paskus also writes a regular column about local environmental issues for the Santa Fe
Reporter; covers water issues for Environmental Flows Bulletin, a publication of the UNM School of
Law’s Utton Center; and is managing editor of Tribal College Journal.
Paskus suggests: Develop trusted sources who can explain data and studies and processes and who
you can rely upon to vet other sources of information. Some of my best science sources are people I’ve
never written a story about or quoted. Rather, they’re folks I can trust to explain something
complicated to me or who can provide a “bullshit” test—either of the study or my own ideas about it.
Abandon your ego before the interview. Be unafraid to ask questions (sometimes again and again and
again). I don’t mind if the scientist or source I’m interviewing thinks I’m a feeble-minded because I’ve
asked four times how something works. I’d rather have that one person think I’m daffy than misinform
or mislead readers. Also don’t be afraid to call a source back once you’ve started writing and you realize
you’re not quite clear on the topic. I once had to call a source five times. He was gracious and laughed
with me about it, thankfully. But more importantly, readers got the right story.
Find a way to bridge the distance between your subject (a river, a scientist, a study) and your readers.
Science is so cool, and so important for adults and children to understand, that I always want the writers
I’m reading (or editing) to connect their readers with their subjects.
Use details to bring your characters alive. (And don’t just explain what someone looks like. Instead,
note where during your interview he laughs, or why she became interested in science, or what kind of
week he was having.)
Depending on the space you have, add a sentence or a paragraph of context. Why does this matter?
And what happens next?
Don’t forget about humor. If someone laughs while reading your story, chances are good they’ll keep
reading all the way to the end. I have no data to support this…but it happens when I’m reading nonfiction.
Know who represents what side in a controversial science issue such as climate change, who is paying
the salary of the scientist or spokesperson, what is their background.
If you don’t care about the story, your readers won’t either. If you’re not enthusiastic or interested in
a topic (and you have the luxury of not writing stories that bore you), move on to something that does
excite your curiosity.
For scientists:
We know you love your data. But please, let your baby go. Talk with journalists about your data and
your work, and don’t be afraid that it’s going to be misunderstood or misappropriated somehow. The
more time you spend talking with us, the better we can understand what you’re working on and how it
might interest the public. Call journalists back and consider reaching out to a writer whose work you’ve
admired (or hated). We’re always looking for story tips and interesting features. Also, please remember
that while acknowledging uncertainty is a huge part of the scientific process, journalists need certainty
to share with the public.
Scientific research is often supported by public money, whether you work for a state or federal agency
or are an academic receiving say, National Science Foundation funding. If you are reluctant to return a
call from a journalist—either because you fear retribution from your bosses (if you work at a state or
federal agency) or because you don’t feel as though it’s in your personal best interest (or your lab’s best
interest)—please remember that the public is paying for your research. They deserve to know what
you’re doing with their money.
George Johnson:
Johnson has written about science for the New York Times, National Geographic Magazine, Slate,
Scientific American, Wired, The Atlantic, and other publications. His most recent book, "The Ten Most
Beautiful Experiments," is being translated into 15 languages. He is the author of nine books, including
"Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search for Order" and "Strange Beauty: Murray Gell-Mann and
the Revolution in 20th-Century Physics." Both were finalists for the Royal Society Science Book Prize. His
latest book, "The Cancer Chronicles," will be published in 2013. A winner of the AAAS Science Journalism
Award, he is co-director of the Santa Fe Science Writing Workshop and a former Alicia Patterson fellow.
A graduate of the University of New Mexico and American University, his first reporting job was covering
the police beat for the Albuquerque Journal. He lives in Santa Fe and can be found on the Web at
talaya.net.
Probability in a research finding is one of the hardest things to report on in a way the public
understands, but it is crucial to explain.
Studies can be flawed. Check with other scientists in the field and vet research findings the best you
can through other sources.
Gregory Nielson:
Dr. Nielson is a Principal Member of Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories. At MIT he studied
optical micro and nanosystems under an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship and developed the first fully
integrated wavelength selective optical MEMS switch. (Micro-electromechanical systems). In 2004, he
came to Sandia as a Truman Fellow and demonstrated world record MEMS micromirror switching times
of 225 nanoseconds. He has been leading the award-winning “Microsystem-enabled Photovoltaic”
project at Sandia for the last six years which has been recognized with an R&D 100 Award. He is an
author on more than 40 peer-reviewed technical publications and an inventor on 10 patents and 12
pending patent applications.
Science and technology reporting is more difficult and complicated now than ever before due to the
increased complexity of current science and technology. The gap between what is generally understood
about science and technology in society and where cutting edge science and technology is larger than
ever before. To make science and technology stories more accessible requires bridges to be built
between the science (or scientist) and the reader. These bridges could be human interest, scientific
interest, economic interest, political interest, etc. The more bridges that can be built, the more powerful
the story will be. Hopefully scientists understand this but probably most don’t think about these things
too much, therefore the role of the reporter becomes much more important.
Over the years I have heard a number of scientists joke about how reporters “get things wrong” in
their articles. This has typically been a result of reporters trying to simplify things so the audience can
understand the concepts, which is a necessary thing in most cases. One way to ensure an article remains
accurate is to ask the scientists to look over or talk through the simplification of their research before
publishing to make sure it is factual.
Heather Clark:
Sandia National Laboratory public information specialist. Clark, a former Associated Press reporter,
was unable to join the panel but offered the following tips:
If you don’t understand what the scientist is talking about because they are not speaking English in
the way most of us understand the language, ask them to explain. I hear so many reporters who say
they understand when they don’t have a clue what the researcher just said. Who would?! Reporters
have to have enough confidence in their intelligence to ask scientists to explain in a way so that Joe
Public can understand. The best way to do this is to repeat back what you thought you understood in
everyday speech and see if the scientist agrees. (And this may have to happen in a subsequent phone
call or email once you’ve had a chance to process the information.) For the reporters who do this, most
scientists will tweak their language or there will be a back-and-forth dialogue until they are both on the
same page. Sometimes, the researchers will think about it for a day or so and then come back with a
great analogy or example that makes something complex much more accessible.
At the end of the interview, ask scientists what three things he or she would prioritize in the story,
reminding them that you have only 12 inches or 30-60 seconds to tell it. Researchers often say that
reporters miss the point of the invention or their work. But I sometimes see researchers going off on a
tangent during interviews and reporters coming away thinking some aspect of the invention is more
important than it really is. By asking what the researcher’s top three points or priorities are, the reporter
1) might uncover an angle that they missed in the first go-around and get another 10 minutes or so of
information. 2) They might reassess what the main points of the story should be. 3) They may get a great
quote because the researchers often sum up their thoughts very succinctly by this point in the interview.
And, 4) If the reporter chooses to stress other topics in the story (and sometimes they should do this),
the answer to that question at least tells them how that scientist views their own work and will help the
reporter write or speak with more authority.
James Danneskiold:
Danneskiold has been manager of media relations and employee communications at Sandia National
Laboratories since December 2010. He was a senior public information specialist at Los Alamos National
Lab for 16 years, specializing in nuclear weapons, and chief of staff for LANL’s Nuclear Nonproliferation
Division for four years. Before that, he covered Santa Fe politics for the Albuquerque Journal and was
Chama Valley Bureau chief and then managing editor of the Rio Grande Sun in Española.
Danneskiold opines on Flacks & hacks — Public Information Specialists have a responsibility to their
institutions. However, they are not gatekeepers between scientists and reporters, especially if they
serve a taxpayer-funded institution like a national lab. A good PIS not only will prepare the scientist for
the interview and help "reduce the nuclear jargon," she will also interview the interviewer. If I have one
tip to offer to reporters and PIS, it is this: make sure the PIS — and, by extension, the scientist, knows in
excruciating detail what the reporter expects to get out of the scientist, what kind of story she envisions
and what preconceptions led the reporter to seek the interview. If the scientist starts out on the same
wavelength as the reporter, the results can be astonishingly good.
Charles Wiggins:
Dr. Wiggins is director and principal investigator of the New Mexico Tumor Registry and associate
professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the UNM School of Medicine. (His students say he makes
a painful class thoroughly enjoyable!). Dr. Wiggins has more than 30 years of experience in cancer
surveillance and epidemiology and a strong interest in cancer among underserved populations.
Wiggins believes scientists and journalists could communicate better if both groups took some time to
learn a little bit about each other's cultures. “We need to develop some empathy,” he said.
Suggested readings -
Nancy Baron.Escape from the Ivory Tower-A Guide to Making Your Science Matter. Island Press 2010.
ISBN 978-1-59726-664-2.
Randy Olson. Don't Be Such a Scientist-Talking Substance in an Age of Style. Island Press 2009. ISBN
978-1-59726-563-8.
Richard Hayes and Daniel Grossman. A Scientist's Guide to Talking with the Media-A Practical Guide
from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Rutgers University Press 2006. ISBN 978-0-8135-3858-7.
Cornelia Dean. Am I Making Myself Clear? A Scientist's Guide to Talking to the Public. Harvard
University Press 2009. ISBN 978-0-674-03635-2.