“The End of Science Writing”
by Jon Franklin
April 17, 2003
Jenny Schuster
About the Author: Jon Franklin






B.S., Univ. of Maryland, 1970
Currently Philip Merrill Professor of Journalism
at University of Maryland
Has served on the faculty at Univ. of Maryland,
U. of Oregon, and Oregon State U. in various
writing programs
Winner of two Pulitzer Prizes—feature writing
(1979) and explanatory journalism (1985), and
many other awards
Has worked as a science journalist for the
Baltimore Sun and Raleigh News and Observer
He is well known for his work in creative/literary
nonfiction.
Selected Publications



Books: The Molecules of the Mind, Guinea Pig Doctors, Not Quite a
Miracle, Shocktrauma
Articles: “The Extraordinary Adventure That Is Science Writing,”
article in Nieman Reports, Fall 2002; “Bringing Judy Back,” AprilMay 2001. Multipart narrative series in the Raleigh News and
Observer about a woman who suffered from a stroke; “To Make a
Mouse,” December 1998, News and Observer, about genetic
engineering; “The Angel of the White Plague,” February 2000 News
and Observer, about tuberculosis; “Mind Fixers,” Sun series, won
1984 Pulitzer; “Mrs. Kelly’s Monster,” Sun article, won 1979 Pulitzer
Many, many more listed at his web site:
http://www.bylinefranklin.com
“The End of Science Writing”


Delivered as the Alfred and Julia Hill lecture at the University of
Tennessee on March 17, 1997
Citations: This lecture hasn’t been cited that many times.

Controversies in Science: A Resource for Journalists. Published
by the North Carolina Association for Biomedical research;
http://www.researchamerica.org/publications/controversies.in.s
cience.pdf

“End of the era of—luxury of—science ‘translators.’” The Oak
Ridger Online, Oak Ridge, TN.
http://www.oakridger.com/stories/032597/smyser.html

I also found links to the article on several university
composition course websites, including one at Purdue (COM
453).
Franklin’s Opinions

A lot of the statements made by the author
are very opinionated. I am interested to
hear if you agree or disagree with him and
why.
Rift between science
community and public



“Science remained separate from what we
thought of as ‘normal life.’”
“Since the beginning of the Enlightenment people
had tended to be either very literate in science or
not literate at all.”
“Scientists saw the world as theory and fact,
observation and prediction, statistical significance
and probability. The rest of the world titrated
experience in terms of motive and morality, right
and justice, miracles and fate.”
Scientists


“Scientists thought of themselves as apolitical. As
soon as science started being financed by public
dollars it was political…Scientists, innocents that
they were, confused being in political favor with
being apolitical.”
“It is time for scientists to come to terms with the
fact that they're eating at the political trough and
that they'd damned well better make their political
case, and make it in a way that real people can
understand it.”
Anti-Science Attitudes


“One study showed that people who watched a lot
of television tended to be biased against
science…It turned out that TV scientists had the
highest fatality rate of any occupational group on
the airwaves, with fully 10 percent of them dead
before the closing credits. Even lawyers fared
better. The message is clear: Science, like crime,
doesn't pay. Or shouldn't.”
“It's no different in the movies. Look, for
instance, at ET…The evil father, in Star Wars –
what had happened to him? He had been touched
by science. Or take Jurassic Park.”
Science Writing


“Much of it, as a result, is grossly inaccurate if
not in fact then in tone, play, and context.”
“Scientists are forever complaining that they
are misunderstood and misrepresented, and I
agree. But imagine what it's like to be the guy
in the middle, to be caught up in the distortion
process, to find yourself bargaining
passionately for a tad more accuracy in a
story, say, about UFOs or cold fusion.”
Conclusion

“If science was ever a thing apart, a special
way of living and of seeing things, that
time is past. Today, science is the vital
principle of our civilization. To do science
is critical, to defend it the kernel of
political realism. To define it in words is to
be, quite simply, a writer, working the
historical mainstream of literature.”
Why I picked this article




I am a molecular biology and English double major.
I plan on pursuing a career in either scientific
communications or scientific patent law.
I am fascinated by the challenge of explaining
scientific research and rhetoric to people with no
scientific background.
I think that communicating science is very important
in this technical day and age, but I’m curious to know
what you think about it.
Group Discussion

Discuss the questions I asked in my prompt:
 Do you feel that there is a division between scientists
and the rest of society? Explain.
 Do you think that mass media (print and otherwise)
are doing good enough of a job explaining and
justifying science to mainstream society? Why or
why not?
 Do you personally feel alienated from modern
science? Why or why not?
 Do you feel that our society can exist today with
science being completely separate from the rest of
society?
Question


How many of you have read a scientific
magazine like National Geographic for
fun?
If not, why not?
Group Activity

Split up into groups and evaluate the
following scientific publications’ websites:




Discover Magazine: www.discover.com
Scientific American Magazine:
www.sciam.com
New Scientist Magazine:
www.newscientist.com
Popular Science Magazine: www.popsci.com
Pick an article on a topic you aren’t
familiar with and skim it. Then, evaluate
the following questions in your group:



How good of a job do you think the author
did rhetorically, explaining a technical topic
to someone with no background in that topic?
If they didn’t do a good job, how could they
improve? If they did do a good job, what
made it so good?
Did most group members think the
magazine’s articles were understandable or
not?
Bad Examples


Split into your groups and check out some of
these “bad” examples of scientific journalism.
Why do you think they are considered “bad?”



http://www.ledgerenquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/3120467.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1480365.st
m
List of some other examples:
http://www.jsmf.org/pages/about/pastworstneuro.htm
Franklin’s Writings


Now, start reading Franklin’s first PulitzerPrize-winning story, “Mrs. Kelly’s
Monster.”
How does the style of this story differ from
those you read in the other magazines? Do
you like it better? Why or why not?
http://www.bylinefranklin.com/writing/monster.htm
Writing Exercise



Now, everyone is an expert on something.
Pick a subject you know a lot about (it
doesn’t have to be scientific) and write a
short paragraph explaining the basics of
your area of expertise to someone with no
experience in the field.
How did you decide to include what you
did? How did you decide to exclude certain
details?
Conclusion


All people trying to communicate some
specialized knowledge to a mainstream
audience face conflicts.
The real challenge in writing like this is to
balance accuracy with understandability.