Tutorial: How to get past your science writer’s block
Some tips on structuring ideas for budding science writers.
If you are a student or researcher contemplating a writing career, starting your own blog or just writing something that people outside your lab could read, chances are that you fall into one (or both) of the following categories:
You are unhappy with the current mainstream media approach to science reporting. You may have read a dozen articles on some latest “celebrity” issue such as CRISPR babies and wondered — where have all the other science news have gone? Surely, with millions of researchers in the world publishing thousands of papers every day, there must be other interesting discoveries worth talking about. [Indeed, there are.]
You love science and when faced with a topic you are tempted to find out and tell ALL you can about it. After all, you have been studying science for some years now and the amount of knowledge you alone have to share is immense. Moreover, you have always been taught to take on ambitious research goals and meticulously report your every single finding. [Don’t fall into this trap.]
The good news is that you are not alone. The majority of students who attended my science journalism workshops are facing the same issues. And nearly every student that I met is eager to change the current clickbait culture of science reporting.
However, when it comes to turning your idea into a piece of writing, it is very tempting to take on a herculean task of writing a whole PhD thesis instead of a crispy, engaging science story for everyone. This is the point when most people drop their idea before writing a single line. They feel overwhelmed and begin putting off the writing until “they have more time”, which pretty much means “never”.
If any of the above sounds like you, read on. The following tips are designed to help you break through your “science writing block” and finally put your idea into words.
1. The pitfalls
Apart from the temptation to talk about everything at once, here are some other traps that aspiring science writers often fall into:
Explaining the science basics. Having spent years studying complex scientific concepts, we often forget how much our readers may already know. Remember: most of the science basics nowadays can be found online. If your reader is unsure about what DNA is, they will look it up in Wikipedia. Save your valuable time and tell the world something new, something that people cannot find anywhere else.
It’s a lot more gratifying to create new, never seen before content than to try and fight against misconceptions.
Debunking pseudo-science. No doubt, there is an overload of “science” articles out there which are plain wrong. They have been written by people or bots and may be indistinguishable in their style from quality science writing. Try to resist your first impulse to try and correct the last pseudo-science article you saw. Instead: write about real science, report the facts correctly and provide clear links to your information sources. Show your readers that they can trust you and focus on creating value for them.
Justifying the science. This is somewhat related to the first point but has more to do with the deep seated insecurities of the academic world. We often fear that the research we do has no connection to the “real world” and feel compelled to justify the value of this or that science study. It is undoubtedly important but not very gratifying to spend half your article on explaining why a particular topic is worth studying. Tell your reader why a study has been performed and what future potential it has but don’t waste your precious time explaining why antibiotics research is vital. Your readers know that it is. Trust them.
Note: Each of these article types still has its value, however it’s a lot more gratifying to create new, never seen before content than to try and fight against misconceptions.
2. What do you LOVE to talk about?
Now that we got past the clichés, ask yourself — what is your favourite science topic? It may be within your area of expertise but doesn’t have to be. Perhaps, you know a lot about microbiology but at the same time are fascinated by the latest neuroscience research. Ask yourself — when you end up talking science with your friends, what is it that excites you most? Very likely, the idea for your next article is among those things you never get tired of discussing.
Put down a list of topics for yourself and rate them from the most to the least exciting (from your point of view). Now choose one or two topics from the top of your list and work with them. The topic that genuinely sparks your interest is also likely to motivate you enough to follow through.
3. What is your area of expertise?
Once you have chosen your topic, it’s time to utilise your expertise. Say, you are a microbiologist with a secret interest in neuroscience. Can your expert knowledge help you bring a new angle on a story?
You may decide to comment on the controversial topic of “brain microbiome” or take on a less discussed issue of how gut microbes may be responsible for inflammation in the brain.
However, don’t be discouraged if you don’t see an obvious connection between your favourite topic and your “expert” area. Keep this point in mind and use your researcher skills to acquaint yourself with the new field. The ability to quickly digest new knowledge is among the most valuable skills for scientists and journalists alike. And as we know — all science is connected.
4. What’s missing?
Now that you have decided on the topic (at least approximately) and your strengths as a science expert, you may be tempted to sit down and begin the writing. That’s great! However, there is one more step that many early stage science writers tend to ignore — the literature research. I am not talking about academic literature as this is something every scientist can and will do. But not many of us begin the work by checking out what the major media outlets have written on the topic.
Reading other people’s work can help you find the new angle on your own story.
Many people skip this step because they assume that the major media outlets could not possibly be interested in their topic. Others just don’t consider the mainstream media a valuable and reliable source of information (which is partly true, that’s why we are here trying to change this). And some of us are simply afraid to discover that The New Scientist already covered their story.
However, reading other people’s work can help you find the new angle on your own story.
During my time as a science journalist, I established a routine for myself — before I began working on my article I would read every major media outlet and see what they had to say about my topic. And the more I read, the more I realised that many stories are often written from the same perspective, leaving some questions unanswered as if they didn’t exist at all.
Take the reporting about the effects of salt on your heath, for instance. There are dozens of articles out there summarising the latest studies about the influence of salt on the development of autoimmune response. All of them go along the same lines — salt induces A, B and C, which are associated with the development of immune response. So salt is bad for you. Stop eating it. Great but how about telling us what those A, B and C are? Or has anyone ever considered other factors, in addition to salt? Could anyone say how much salt should we actually eat? Questions like these can be a great start for a completely new story.
Finally, ask your friends and relatives: what they are missing in the science stories that they read. Ask the researchers themselves: do they have something important that the journalists never asked them? I’m sure they will have a lot to say.
5. Decide what type of article you are writing
The last point to consider before plunging yourself into the writing is what kind of article you want it to be.
Journalism (at least as it is meant to be) is independent and unbiased reporting, where every statement you make is supported by evidence and all your sources are appropriately referenced.
Very roughly, all stories that we read can be split into three categories:
- News — articles that usually focus on one or several latest developments in the field. This is the best kind of format if you’d like to tell the readers about one recent science paper or invention in the field.
- Features — articles with a broader view on the field, not necessarily reporting on the new developments but taking a new angle on an existing topic.
- Commentaries (or opinions) — under this category fall over 99% of blog posts, as well as opinion columns in media outlets.
It’s very important to make it clear to the reader whether what you are writing is your own point of view or independent reporting on the work and opinions of others.
One of the problems we are facing in the current media climate is the reporting bias, which ultimately leads to the readers’ mistrust. Many online blogs competing for readership are calling their work journalism, without understanding what this title actually means. Major media outlets publish one-sided stories and call it independent reporting. The list goes on.
FYI: Journalism (at least as it is meant to be) is independent and unbiased reporting, where every statement you make is supported by evidence and all your sources are appropriately referenced. In other words, it is very similar to the way scientific research is done.
The current situation has become so bad that the Knight Foundation called in a Commission of 27 media experts to compile a report on Trust, Media, and Democracy. The full report can be found under this link but here is what they suggest to do in order restore the trust in media:
“News organizations need to be radically transparent and interwoven with the communities they cover:
- Clearly label opinion and partisan commentators to distinguish them from news.
- To address perceptions of media bias, emphasize reporting and evidence-based commentary over opinion.
- Update and implement best practices on corrections, fact-checking, anonymous sources, the role of political pundits on broadcast and cable and advertising formats that blur the line between content and commerce.
- Engage with citizens and communities to strengthen the quality and relevance of reporting to increase trust.”
I encourage you to remember these points. There is unquestionable value in raising your expert voice and letting the world know your opinion. Just make sure that your reader understands what they get.
The world needs high quality, trustworthy science reporting and who could be better at delivering it than science experts themselves?
If you enjoyed reading this tutorial, follow SciStory 2.0 for more updates. If you are a student or university representative wishing to bring science journalism education to your school, reach out for a chat. https://www.linkedin.com/in/kpopova/
