Table Of ContentA Field Guide for
Science Writers,
Second Edition
Deborah Blum
Mary Knudson
Robin Marantz Henig,
Editors
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ A FIELD GUIDE FOR SCIENCE WRITERS
This page intentionally left blank
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
A Field Guide for
Science Writers
SECOND EDITION
EDITED BY
Deborah Blum
Mary Knudson
Robin Marantz Henig
1
2006
3
Oxford University Press,Inc.,publishes works that further
Oxford University’s objective ofexcellence
in research,scholarship,and education.
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Copyright © 2006byNational Association ofScience Writers
Published by Oxford University Press,Inc.
198Madison Avenue,New York,New York 10016
www.oup.com
Oxford is a registered trademark ofOxford University Press
All rights reserved.No part ofthis publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system,or transmitted,in any form or by any means,
electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recording,or otherwise,
without the prior permission ofOxford University Press.
Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A Field guide for science writers :the official guide ofthe National Association ofScience
Writers/edited by Deborah Blum,Mary Knudson,Robin Marantz Henig.—2nd ed.
p.cm.
Includesindex.
ISBN-13 978-0-19-517498-4;978-0-19-517499-1(pbk.)
ISBN 0-19-517498-4;0-19-517499-2 (pbk.)
1.Technical writing—Handbooks,manual,etc. I.Blum,Deborah. II.Knudson,Mary.
III.Henig,Robin Marantz.
T11.F52 2005
070.4'495—dc22
2005001267
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States ofAmerica
on acid-free paper
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ FOREWORD
timothy ferris
Science,though young,has already transformed our world,saving over a bil-
lion people from starvation and fatal disease,striking shackles ofignorance and
superstition from millions more,and fueling a democratic revolution that has
brought political liberty to a third of humankind.And that’s only the begin-
ning.The scientific approach to understanding nature and our place in it—a
deceptively simple process ofsystematically testing one’s ideas against the ver-
dict of experiment—has opened limitless prospects for inquiry. There is no
known limit to the knowledge and power that may,for better or worse,come
within our grasp.
Yet few understand science, and many fear its awesome power. To the
uncomprehending,the pronouncements of scientists can sound as opaque as
the muttered spells of magicians, and the workings of scientific technology
resemble,as the French say of the law,a machine that cannot move without
crushing someone.Technophobes warn that science must be stopped before it
goes “too far.”Religious fundamentalists enjoin the righteous to study only one
(holy) book,consulting what Galileo called the book ofnature only insofar as
it serves to confirm their beliefs.Fashionable academics teach that science is but
a collection of socially conditioned opinions,as changeable as haute couture.
Popular culture is so suspicious ofscience that,according to one study,scien-
tists portrayed in American feature films are more likely to be killed by the last
act than are members of any other profession,including Western gunslingers
and Mafia hit men.
The cure for fear and loathing of science is neither propaganda nor per-
suasion but knowledge—conveyed, preferably, in stories that capture and
reward an audience’s attention.Science writers,whose work involves crafting
such stories, are few in number, relatively unheralded, and often underesti-
mated:Like sportswriters and business journalists,they are too often assumed
v
vi Foreword
tobe mere interpreters or translators rather than “real”writers,as ifcrafting an
accurate, evocative paragraph about biochemistry or quantum physics were
less ofan achievement than doing the same thing when the subject was a lotus
blossom or a love affair.But we science writers also enjoy certain advantages.
Wehave what are,in many respects,the best stories to tell—the most momen-
tous,important,and startlingly original stories,as you will find demonstrated
by the writers collected here.Plus,science writers tend to be generous in spirit.
“Interested in writing about science?”reads the subtext of this rich and read-
able book.“Come on over and give it a try!”Heed their counsel,accept their
invitation,give it your best shot,and I’m betting you’ll never go back.
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ EDITORS’NOTE
Inthe eight years since publication ofthe first edition ofA Field Guide for Sci-
ence Writing,much about the world has changed.Science writing has changed,
too.Once the province of nerds and the nerds they wrote about,the field has
evolved,becoming at once more esoteric—because science itself has become
more esoteric—and more a part of daily life. Some of the leading issues in
today’s political marketplace—embryonic stem cell research,global warming,
health care reform, space exploration, genetic privacy, germ warfare—are
informed by scientific ideas.
Never has it been more crucial for the lay public to be scientifically literate.
That’s where science writers come in.And that’s why it’s time for an update to
theField Guide,already a staple ofscience writing graduate programs across the
country.
When we first undertook this venture in the mid-1990s,it was something
new for the National Association of Science Writers. From its beginnings in
1934as an old boys’club ofabout a dozen science writers,NASW is today a pro-
fessional organization with nearly 2,500 members. As the organization has
grown, so has the profession—and now more than ever we need to be clear
about what the profession is all about.
Writing well about science requires,first ofall,bridging the jargon gulf,act-
ing as translators between the sciencespeak ofthe researchers and the short atten-
tion spans ofthe public at large.But great science writing doesn’t stop there.You
can paint an awesome picture ofspace exploration with all its glittering astrotoys,
but you also have a responsibility to probe its failures.You can point out the ben-
efits ofgenetically modified crops or the mapping ofthe human genome,but you
also must explore their potential to do harm.It’s not enough to focus on the sci-
ence itself;the best reporting also discusses safeguarding the public from the risks
vii
viii Editors’Note
of the new knowledge and talks about the cost of Big Science and who has to
pay for it.
The academic community has recently recognized how important it is for
science writers to become more sophisticated, knowledgeable, and skeptical
about what they write.More than 50institutions now offer training in science
writing. In addition, mid-career fellowships for science writers are growing,
giving journalists the chance to return to major universities for specialized
training.We applaud these developments,and hope to be part of them with
this new edition ofthe Field Guide.
In these pages,we’ve assembled contributions from a collection ofexperi-
enced science writers who are every bit as stellar as the group that contributed
to the first edition of the Field Guide. When we editors thought about who
would be best to contribute a particular chapter on writing for a particular
medium—newspapers,magazines,trade journals,books,broadcasting,or the
Web—or in a particular style—explanatory, investigative, narrative, essay, or
what one contributor calls “gee whiz science writing”—we began by asking the
top practitioners ofthat medium or that style.And guess what—they said yes!
So what we have here are essays written by the very best in our profession.Their
voices differ from one chapter to another,but that’s what we wanted—a book
that feels conversational and wise,a chance to pull up a chair and sit beside a
kindly aunt or uncle who can tell you how it’s done.
These wonderful writers have written not only about style,but about con-
tent,too.There’s so much information to impart—some say there are more sci-
entific articles published in the United States in a single year than were
published from Gutenberg’s day through World War II—that negotiating the
morass can be especially daunting for a newcomer.So we asked the leaders of
our profession to describe how they work their way through the information
glut to find the gems worth writing about.As you can see from the table ofcon-
tents, we’ve asked them to describe how they cover subjects ranging from
astronomy to zoology,from the smallest microbe to the universe itself.We also
have chapters that provide the tools every good science writer needs:how to use
statistics,how to weigh the merits ofconflicting studies in the scientific litera-
ture,how to report about risk.And,while we’re at it,how to write.
Asweput all these pieces together,we noticed two themes that kept recur-
ring. Both of them seem to capture science writing at the beginning of the
twenty-first century. The first relates to narrative. Over and over again, our
authors advise you to look for the story,the narrative arc,that will compel your
readers to stick around to find out about the science.This has always been a
good idea—think back to one of the earliest examples of best-selling science
writing,Microbe Huntersby Paul de Kruif,which has been continually in print
Editors’Note ix
since 1926.What’s new,however,is that more and more writers are seeing the
brilliance ofdoing what de Kruifdid,presenting science as one great big story-
book adventure.
The second recurring bit of advice concerns balance.Traditional journal-
ism aims for objectivity by including representatives ofboth sides ofany debate.
But in many ofthe most vigorous debates in science,looking for contrary views
would do your readers a disservice.There’s no need to quote from the fringe
groups—people who insist that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS,or who don’t believe in
evolution,or who think Earth is flat—just because they exist.More than in any
other field of reporting, balance in science writing requires something other
than just providing an equal number ofcolumn inches to quotes from each side.
Balance in science writing requires authorial guidance;it requires context,and
knowing when certain points ofview simply need to be ignored.
The science writers who contributed the bookends for the Field Guide,the
foreword and the epilogue,are among the most luminous practitioners ofthe
craft.Each ofthem graciously set aside his other obligations to take the time to
think about our profession’s particular strengths and challenges,hoping to illu-
minate the recondite corners ofscience writing in a way that will help the next
generation. We would like to offer here a thank you to Tim Ferris and Jim
Gleick,two men who have spent their careers elevating science writing by glo-
rious example.Tim is the author ofsuch brilliant books as Coming ofAge in the
Milky Way (1988) and The Whole Shebang (1997) and was once described as
writing “as ifbrushed with stardust.”Jim,whom one critic called the “consum-
mate craftsman,” writes books that are equally brilliant, including the best-
sellersChaos(1987) and Genius(1992),as well as Isaac Newton(2003),a finalist
for the Pulitzer Prize.
While we’re expressing appreciation,we’d like to thank all our other con-
tributors,too,whose compensation was so small as to make their work for us
essentially voluntary. They were entirely professional at every point of the
process,responding with grace and speed to editorial direction that could have
been awkward,coming as it did not only from colleagues and friends,but from
a trio ofus.Thanks,guys—you made it easy.
Thanks,too,to Joan Bossert,our editor at Oxford University Press,for see-
ing the need to update the Field Guideand for enthusiastically getting behind
the project, as well as to her assistant Jessica Sonnenschein. Thanks to Mary
Makarushka, whose sharp organizational skills kept the three of us on track
during this book’s assembly,and to Diane McGurgan ofNASW,who always put
in the extra effort on our behalf.And thanks to the organizations that provided
much-needed financial support to see this project through:the Alfred P.Sloan
