|
|
| Volume 46, Number 2, Fall 1998 |
by Laura van Dam
Whether ’tis nobler for a budding science writer to go for a PhD in one of the sciences or not—that was the question posed earlier this year on the NASW-talk listserv.
The range of replies show how diverse our organization and
the label “science writer” are today.
If the desire is to practice journalism for general readers, the
best course is to focus on reporting and writing instead of advanced
study in science, most respondents said emphatically. In this
situation, writers with advanced science degrees generally did
not promote the idea of following in their footsteps.
Freelancer Stephen Hart wrote that to his knowledge no editor has assigned him a story based on his degree (a master’s in biology for teachers). Even David Whitehouse—who noted that the BBC hired him as a science correspondent because that group was interested in his advanced-science background (he did post-doctoral work in astrophysics)—pointed out, “My experience is that if you have passion about communicating, then a science degree doesn’t matter at all.”
“Knowing too much can also be quite a problem,” wrote Aries Keck, writer/producer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s radio programs, Science Update.
In fact, asked Jon Franklin, science writer at The News & Observer in Raleigh, NC, “Why would you pay for education, which will almost inevitably be over-specialized for your purposes, when the world’s best and brightest scientists will shoo everyone else out of the office and make time to educate you? Hell, that’s one of the bennies of the biz.”
But writing for a specialized audience is a different matter, a chorus of listserv participants agreed. Hart pointed out that his graduate degree has helped with textbook editing. Freelancer Michael Kenward, the editor of New Scientist magazine throughout the 1980s, wrote that an advanced degree “must be a selling point” in acquiring a position at a technical trade publication or scientific journal. Shauna Roberts, a freelance writer and editor, wrote that her PhD can make her a top choice for a “scientifically complex topic.” She also reasoned that her degree, which is in anthropology, gives her more solid footing “when a scientist gets snotty and arrogant.” And a variety of respondents commented that their pursuit of higher-level science taught them skills in areas such as research, analysis, comprehension of statistics and experimental design, and hype detection.
The conversation swung—perhaps inevitably—to whether obtaining a science-journalism degree is worthwhile. A’ndrea Elyse Messer, science and research information officer at Pennsylvania State University, suggested that such a degree has helped her work as a science writer continuously for the past 20 years.
Remember that other educational alternatives are possible than advanced study in science or journalism, wrote Henry Lansford, a freelance science writer and communication consultant whose master’s was in English (with a history minor). Consider the idea that appeared in a related discussion this April (the listserv conversations sometimes reappear in altered forms). Freelance writer and editor Eric Bobinsky suggested that students “should get a journalism or communications degree and spend a summer or two working in somebody’s lab to get a feel for the ‘real’ side of research (scientists are often willing to accommodate students from other fields).”
Clearly, there’s no best way to pursue a career in science writing. Jon Franklin pointed that out early during the January discussion, noting that science writing has “different flavors.” He added that the right answer “depends on your trajectory,” and “the more you know about your trajectory, the better, and the earlier the better.”
NASW Board Member Laura van Dam is a senior editor with Houghton Mifflin Co.