Over the past decade there has been a shift in science journalism. While traditional print and broadcast media still produce science news, digital media now plays an even bigger role in communicating about science. Many consumers also get much of their science content through websites or social media accounts devoted solely to science, including Facebook pages like IFLScience, Smart is the New Sexy, Bill Nye, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
There’s also been a shift in who is writing about science. Increasingly, science-related news is covered by part-time or freelance science reporters or by generalist reporters with no specific training in science.
In some ways, these changes, especially the shortage of reporters with a background in science, have had a negative impact on science journalism. More press releases are being published on digital media sites, sometimes word-for-word. Science news stories may also heavily quote from or paraphrase press releases, often with no independent experts to critique the assertions made by the press release.
But there have also been a few positive developments, such as the growth of science-focused websites and social media accounts that generate public excitement about science. And the increase in the number of scientists who are writing about their own and other scientists’ research, bypassing journalists entirely and bringing science directly to the public.
Science news written by scientists vs. reporters
Scientists, however, face a number of challenges in writing science news. The academic jargon-filled style of writing that they are familiar with may not be suitable for a general audience, especially one used to consuming news in ever-shrinking soundbites on social media.
Scientists may also be more comfortable communicating with other scientists — who already have a natural interest in science — whereas that same level of interest may need to be coaxed out of the general public, who often expect to be entertained at same time as they are educated.
One big shift in the science news landscape is the growth of websites such as The Conversation and Medium, which have made it easier for scientists to write about science for the general public. Some news outlets, such as Forbes, also welcome posts written by scientists.
But are people reading science news stories written by scientists?
A study published earlier this year in PLoS ONE attempted to answer this question. Israeli researchers compared the public’s online engagement with news stories written by early career scientists trained as science reporters to those written by reporters.
The content for both was published on two Israeli news websites. Neither of those sites employed science writers, so the reporter content was written by generalists. Stories written by scientists and reporters went through the same editing process, which included scientific editing, fact checking, content editing, and copyediting.
Researchers measured online engagement with the science news stories using Google Analytics data. This was based on four variables:
- Clicks: The number of times people clicked on a story’s headline to view the full story. This was used as a proxy for the number of people who read the articles.
- Average time on page: The time people spent on the page, from arrival to exiting the page. Greater time suggests people read the article more fully, rather than skimming and clicking away.
- Likes: The number of readers who clicked the “Like” button for the story. This signals a higher level of engagement on the part of the readers,
- Comments: The number of comments left by readers at the bottom of the story, another sign of reader interest in the story.
On the first website, Mako, the results were mixed. “There was no difference in the time devoted to reading the items or liking them (hitting the ‘Like’ button) but there was a clear preference to click items that were not written by scientists and were not necessarily about science,” the authors write.
On the second site, Ynet, the variables were similar for stories written by scientists and reporters. “The public’s interactions with science news written by scientists were not significantly different from other news items written by reporters on Ynet’s news site,” the authors write.
Learning how to write about science is key to quality
These results suggest that the public reacts similarly to science news stories written by scientists compared to those written by reporters. “Readers are willing to engage with scientific content authored by scientists, which we see as a very positive result,” the authors write.
However, the researchers were surprised that the scientists’ stories didn’t generate more reader engagement compared to reporter-written stories, given that “scientists’ writing about science should be more accurate and knowledgeable than [generalist] reporters, and therefore more popular among readers who enjoy its higher quality,” they write.
In the study, though, the researchers didn’t actually compare the quality of stories written by scientists compared to those written by reporters. Even though it’s true that scientists probably have a greater understanding of many science topics than do generalist reporters, this may not automatically translate into higher-quality science news stories.
Writing about science, just like science itself, is a process that needs to be learned. Even the scientists included in this study had been previously trained to write about science by a scientific institute in Israel. Without this training, the scientists’ news stories may not have had the same impact on readers.
Even generalist reporters, who usually cover beats like national or local news, need to learn how to write about science before they can do it well. This has been especially true over the past few months, as reporters for whom science or health is a new beat were called on to cover the COVID-19 pandemic.
Compare these generalist reporters to science journalists, many of whom come to the profession with a background in science, sometimes with hands-on experience working in a lab or other scientific capacity. Some of them also have a doctoral degree in science. This provides them with invaluable knowledge of how science works, which is useful not just when writing science news stories, but also when interviewing scientists.
Before I became a health and science writer, I worked for many years doing molecular and genetic research, working on various clinical trials, and helping researchers apply for grants and get their studies off the ground. During this time, I also wrote a lot about science for grant applications, journal articles, textbook chapters, and website content. So when I sit down to write about science, I already have much of the background information that I need to write the story — or to ask the right questions when I’m interviewing a doctor or scientist.
The researchers also point out that reporters writing about science have another important role besides just passing on the details of new research — that of the “critical independent outsider.” Scientists may not always be able to fulfill this role when writing about their own work or interviewing a fellow scientist, especially one that works at the same institution.
However, given the decline in the number of full-time science journalists in recent years, scientists can certainly help “fill the void” in science communication. They don’t necessarily need to use the same model that was used in this study, in which scientists produced content for existing media outlets. It is now easier than ever for scientists to communicate directly with the public through blogs, YouTube videos, print books, and social media.
Any time that science is shared with the public in a way that is accurate and interesting, that is good for both the public and for the scientists who do the work of exploring and understanding the world.
