Suppose a drug company trumpets a new product as reducing risk of a bad outcome by 33%. Should you take it? Maybe not, Trisha Greenhalgh writes in this PLOS post. Greenhalgh uses Twitter followers — as well as Aristotle — to help her explain why, in a form that makes sense to people without statistical expertise: “In sum, the use of the story form – with evil villains, powerless victims, trouble and things at stake – is a powerful tool for engaging learners.”
Science writing news
Curiosity's landing on Mars was perfection. Early photos, including the first Mars panorama. Chemistry and geology on Mars. Diabetes blogger sues the state. Which Paleo diet is right for H. sap? The Obesity Paradox: Why do fat diabetics live longer? Zoom through the 3-D universe and blow your mind.
The key to countering science denial through journalism is to tell a good story. That's the view of Sean Carroll, a University of Wisconsin-Madison geneticist and vice president for science education at Howard Hughes Medical Institute, who spoke at April's NASW-sponsored "Science Writing in the Age of Denial" conference. Carroll discussed narrative theory’s relationship to cognitive psychology. From the Summer 2012 ScienceWriters.
Two prominent educators and NASW members offer advice to students about science writing in this Quora post. Traditional journalism may be on the skids, but other options beckon, says Rob Irion of UC Santa Cruz: "The bottom line is that I remain sanguine about getting a job with the right training in hand. Become involved with NASW, seek mentors in the field, attend key meetings (NASW and AAAS, in particular), use social media, and seek solid training. You'll do fine."
Remember when the words you typed didn't change? Those days are gone, thanks to the mixed blessings of Autocorrect. In this New York Times opinion piece, science writer James Gleick recounts some funny stories — (A hot dog vendor dashes to the pitcher’s mound; the manager looks at his hand-held device and says: “Oh, I see what happened. Autocorrect changed ‘southpaw’ to ‘sauerkraut.’”) — before discussing the competing algorithms of Autocorrect.
Ivan Oransky's blog turned two last week and the professor/physician/editor answered questions from The Scholarly Kitchen: "I find that a lot of what passes for science communication is too boosterish, leaving out limitations, for example. In health journalism, a look at Gary Schwitzer’s HealthNewsReview.org shows that journalism outlets are passing along much of that boosterism without any reporting or filters."
Pulitzer-winning science writer Richard Rhodes gave a keynote at this year's Mayborn Literary Nonfiction Conference. The author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb had this to say about what he calls verity: "It’s actually more challenging to write than fiction, because it adds to all the challenges of writing fiction a further challenge of building the elements of the real world. Elements with external reference. Fiction you can just make up."
Arthur Lupia, political science professor at the University of Michigan, thinks there's a reason why journalism so often fails to connect with its audience. It's because journalists focus too much on transmitting information and not enough on understanding their audience's starting point. He spoke at April's NASW-sponsored "Science Writing in the Age of Denial" conference at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. From the Summer 2012 ScienceWriters.
In a Nieman Reports article, Craig Silverman of Regret the Error quotes a 19th-century journalism manual that said it was "standard practice for reporters to invent a few details, provided the made-up facts were nonessential to the overall story." How things have changed. Today, Silverman writes, there's a higher standard: "Never before in the history of journalism — or society — have more people and organizations been engaged in fact checking and verification."