Essay

Eureka!
The Importance of Good Science Writing

by Anton Holland

Had there been a newspaper in the early days of humankind, the discovery of fire would have received front-page coverage. If television had existed, news anchors would have attempted to articulate what the discovery really meant to the common cave dweller. And CNN would have gone on and on for days about the latest breaking developments, mostly consisting of reports of charred meat and singed fingers.

But at that time, of course, there was no need for newspapers, Fred Flintstone notwithstanding. Society was small, and almost everyone would have had some exposure to the science of fire making.

Today, however, society is large and scientific experiments across the world are carried out by people who are usually hidden from public view. So much of what scientists do affects our daily lives, yet most people remain largely unaware of how scientists use their (mostly public) funding, and how their work affects them. Good science writing helps us understand what scientists around the world are up to.

Science writing is not so much about science, but about people — human problems and their solutions, curiosity and discovery. On the whole, however, science expands far ahead of the average literacy curve and society in general is scientifically illiterate. As a result, most people fail to see the human aspect of science and how it affects their daily lives.

Science writing isn’t just an interesting genre, it fills the massive information gap between what scientists do and know, and what the public understands. In democratic society, the general public is called upon to make decisions on how taxes are spent. Vast amounts of public funds are spent by governments on a multitude of research programs, yet only a small subset of the public is sufficiently knowledgeable about the science and technology that is involved in public policy debates to make informed decisions.

The knowledge gap becomes critical when lawmakers make funding decisions and devise public policy based on issues they have difficulty grasping. The situation acts like a feedback loop: because policymakers represent the public, they cannot ignore the concerns and preferences of any portion of the electorate, regardless of the extent of the electorate’s scientific misconceptions or the transitory nature of their opinions.

How extensive is this knowledge gap?

• In a survey conducted by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in the United States, 70 percent of respondents rated their understanding of science and technology as adequate to very good. Many Americans also believe that science includes astrology, yoga, and ESP.
• In a survey conducted by Johns Hopkins University’s Genetics and Public Policy Center, it was found that people assume that the promise of a scientific breakthrough equates with its reality. For example, while genetic therapy for many diseases looks promising now, no effective treatments have actually been developed, though many people assume that they have.
• A survey by Northern Illinois University reported that one third of the respondents did not know what a molecule is, two thirds did not know what radiation is, and five sixths did not grasp the basics of genetic engineering. In addition, 63 percent said that dinosaurs and humans occupied the earth simultaneously, and 73 percent thought lasers focus sound waves rather than light waves.
• A study on scientific literacy by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), whose members include 30 of the world’s most technologically advanced countries, indicated that slightly over 10 percent of the population in industrialized countries has a good understanding of scientific concepts and methods.

The problems emphasized by these examples are clear. According to the OTA study, a significant portion of people believe that the governing of individual personalities by the position of constellations in the sky is a scientific fact. The Johns Hopkins survey points to the fact that many people expect suggested practical applications from basic scientific findings to follow instantaneously, even though such research may have already taken years to accomplish. The Northern Illinois University survey reveals that most people would not be able to formulate any kind of informed opinion on the benefits and risks of nuclear energy, genetic therapies, genetically modified foods, reproductive technologies, or even a new breed of goldfish at their local pet shop. Even more disconcerting is that almost three quarters of the people in the survey have no idea what is happening when they go to the hospital to have an ultrasound procedure to check on a pregnancy or to treat an ailment.

The OECD study provides probably the most worrisome information of all. Only one in ten citizens in the world’s most technologically advanced countries would be able to follow and participate in a controversy involving a scientific or technical issue.

Science writers act as brokers between scientists and the general public. Science writing — we see it in ordinary newsstand magazines and newspapers, on the walls of museums, on television programs — means writing about science and technology in a way that is digestible for general readers. And while it deals with often mind-bending subjects like genes and genetically modified foods, black holes and space-time distortions, and microscopic organisms and their complex relationships with the natural world, it can be done gracefully and in a way that engages the average reader. The best of its practitioners worry as much about how to tell the story of science as the science itself. Science writing tackles ideas that can tax the limits of our comprehension — it is ambitious, creative, and hard to do well, particularly because it has to bridge such a huge scientific illiteracy gap.

While many people believe that science on the whole is objective, there can be a great deal of bias inherent in scientific research. If science writers are not careful to be aware of such biases, even comprehensive coverage of a line of research can provide the public with the wrong information. Two examples of situations in which science writers must tread carefully include scientific studies carried out on behalf of advocacy groups or funded by particular industries to support a particular point of view.

Apart from television shows that deal with scientific themes, the majority of information that the public receives on scientific issues is obtained through the news media. And while journalists often describe their activities in terms of commitments to objectivity and accuracy, there are many obstacles to effective science reporting.

Because of limited space in newspapers or lack of time on television or radio news, scientific issues are often addressed without a discussion of the basic science behind them. As a result, readers, viewers and listeners can be confused even though a topic appears to receive a great deal of coverage. For example, in a 2001 Léger Marketing poll (as reported in a Canadian Press wire story), 78.4 percent of respondents did not know what the acronym GMO meant despite receiving a great deal of coverage over several years. (GMO stands for genetically modified organism.)

Another problem is deciding what news department should cover a story. Is a particular scientific breakthrough related to health, the environment, or business? In the case of something like the disposal of nuclear waste, the answer is probably "all of the above" and diffuse coverage results. Readers who might frequently peruse health or environmental topics may never read the business section.

There are cultural issues as well, both within and between scientific and media organizations. Many people engage in the public communication of science and technology: science journalists, public information officers for various organizations, and scientists who speak or write for general audiences. Each of these professional groups has its own set of values and goals; conflicts among them and the scientists from whom they acquire information are frequently due to differences in values. Some conflicts result from different meanings of what "science" is, while others result from differing national and cultural values.

For example, scientists and journalists interpret objectivity and accuracy differently. For journalists, objectivity means evaluating the evidence and committing to the right answer once that evaluation is complete and accuracy means getting the facts right on deadline. For scientists, on the other hand, accuracy is equated with truth, and with taking the time to test information against misinterpretation before expressing an opinion. As a result, scientists may not be able to give journalists the hard and fast answers they require. The coverage may then misinterpret caution for mystification.

Journalists who understand science issues and events — such as new approaches to global warming, genetic testing to determine who might develop breast cancer, and vaccines for AIDS — and who know how to explain it to the public, or scientists who can report and write about them, play an important role in educating the public. While this role is becoming more important as modern technology leaves a widening gap between citizens and those with scientific expertise, it is important for readers to critically evaluate the science news they read or hear.

Anton Holland was once a marine biologist who embarked on a career in science writing when he realized that his poor conversational French skills would prevent him from ever being part of Jacques Cousteau’s crew on the Calypso.