Wikipedia Deep Dive

Science journalism

14 min read

The Impossible Job

In 1928, a young journalist named James Crowther walked into the offices of The Manchester Guardian and told editor C. P. Scott that he wanted to write about science for the newspaper. Scott's response was blunt: there was "no such thing" as science journalism. Crowther didn't miss a beat. He replied that he intended to invent it.

Scott hired him.

Nearly a century later, Crowther's invention has become essential to modern democracy—and remains almost impossibly difficult to do well. Science journalism sits at the collision point of two cultures with fundamentally different values. Science prizes precision, detail, technical language, and timeless truths. Journalism prizes brevity, approximation, accessible language, and immediate relevance. As one observer put it: "Science values being right. Journalism values being right now."

The tensions are going to be there. The question is what we do with them.

From Almanacs to Twitter

Long before Crowther made his audacious pitch, people were already hungry for news about the natural world. The earliest science journalism emerged from weather observations and reports of new discoveries, scattered through almanacs and pamphlets in the centuries following Gutenberg's printing press.

One surprisingly early example appeared in 1818 in Srirampore, Bengal—a small Danish colonial town in India that had become an unlikely center of publishing. A magazine called Digdarshan (the name means "showing the direction" in Bengali) began carrying articles about plants, steam boats, and other wonders of the age. It was published simultaneously in Bengali, Hindi, and English, making it one of the first multilingual science publications in history.

In the United States, Scientific American launched in 1845 and is still publishing today, making it one of the oldest continuously published magazines in the country. In Britain, the great Victorian polymath Thomas Henry Huxley—nicknamed "Darwin's Bulldog" for his fierce defense of evolution—doubled as a prolific science writer. So did the physicist John Tyndall, who could explain complex ideas about heat and light with unusual clarity.

But these were scientists who happened to write well. The idea of a dedicated journalist whose beat was science itself—that was Crowther's innovation.

The Translation Problem

What exactly does a science journalist do? At its core, the job is translation. Scientists speak in jargon, qualifications, and precise technical language that makes sense to other specialists but leaves everyone else baffled. A good science journalist takes that specialized knowledge and renders it comprehensible to people who haven't spent years studying the field.

This is harder than it sounds.

The temptation is to treat the public as empty vessels waiting to be filled with knowledge—what communication scholars call the "information deficit model." Just pour in the facts and people will understand. But this approach rarely works. It's one-way, top-down, and doesn't account for the fact that audiences bring their own experiences, values, and questions to any topic.

The best science journalism doesn't just inform. It tells stories. It connects abstract findings to human lives. It answers the deceptively simple question that any good journalist learns to ask: "What does this mean to the people on the street?"

Science journalists face an unusual challenge here. They need to tap into both reason and emotion—presenting accurate information while also making people actually care about it. Pure facts don't stick. Stories do.

The Value Judgment Problem

Here's something that might surprise you: science journalism isn't just about explaining what scientists discovered. It's about helping the public figure out what those discoveries mean for their lives—and that involves making value judgments.

Scientific papers present findings in quantitative terms. A new drug reduces the risk of heart attack by 23 percent. A certain chemical appears in 40 percent of water supplies. A vaccine is 95 percent effective. But what should you actually do with that information? Is a 23 percent reduction worth the side effects? Should you be worried about that chemical? Is that vaccine worth getting?

These aren't purely scientific questions. They involve values, priorities, risk tolerance, and personal circumstances. Science can tell you the numbers; it can't tell you how to feel about them.

Science journalists serve as bridges between expert knowledge and individual decision-making. They're responsible for explaining not just the facts, but the major value judgments involved—what's being weighed against what, what the tradeoffs are, what different choices might mean. This is an enormous responsibility, and it's one reason why ethical, accurate science journalism matters so much.

The Balance Trap

Traditional journalism has a rule: present both sides. If you're writing about a political debate, interview the Democrat and the Republican. If there's a controversy, let each side make its case.

This sounds fair. In science journalism, it can be disastrous.

Here's why. In 2019, scientists studying climate change found something striking: among climate researchers, the consensus that global warming is caused by human activity had reached 100 percent. Not 97 percent, which was already overwhelming. One hundred percent. Every single climate scientist surveyed agreed.

And yet you can still find articles with headlines like "Climate Change: A Scientist and Skeptic Exchange Viewpoints," presenting the question as if it were a genuine two-sided debate. One such piece, published in 2018, featured a scientist who complained that "the media and the political class" had declared the science settled when he felt it wasn't.

By journalistic standards, this is balanced reporting. By scientific standards, it's profoundly misleading. It suggests that expert opinion is split when it isn't. It gives a tiny minority view—sometimes backed by industries with financial interests in doubt—the same weight as an overwhelming scientific consensus.

Science journalists have increasingly moved away from this false balance toward what's called "authoritative reporting." Instead of presenting both sides as equally valid, they present the peer-reviewed evidence and either ignore fringe positions or explicitly explain why those positions lack support. It's not about silencing dissent. It's about accurately representing where the actual evidence points.

The Hype Cycle

Science journalists face constant pressure to make discoveries sound exciting. Editors want headlines that grab attention. Readers scroll past anything that sounds boring. And scientists themselves often oversell their work in press releases, hoping for publicity that might help secure future funding.

The result is what critics call the "cycle of hype."

A preliminary study in mice becomes a "breakthrough" that will "revolutionize medicine." A theoretical possibility becomes "scientists discover." Cautious findings get stripped of their qualifications. Timelines compress: a treatment that might be available in twenty years becomes "just around the corner."

Scholars have catalogued the problems: uncritical reporting that simply passes along press releases, an emphasis on scientific progress and economic potential at the expense of nuance, failure to present the range of expert opinion, preference for positive messages over negative ones.

This isn't just sloppy. It erodes trust. When the revolutionary breakthrough fails to materialize, when the promised cure never arrives, people start to wonder if they can believe anything they read about science. The hype cycle breeds cynicism.

The Climate Wars

Perhaps nowhere have the failures of science journalism been more consequential than in coverage of climate change.

Since the 1980s, climate science has become increasingly politicized, especially in the United States. Democrats and Republicans don't just disagree about what to do about global warming—they disagree about whether it's happening and whether humans are causing it. Democrats generally accept the scientific consensus; many Republicans remain skeptical.

How did this happen? Research points to media coverage as a major factor. Studies have found connections between exposure to certain cable news channels and talk radio programs and skepticism about climate change. And for decades, American media outlets exaggerated the scientific disagreement about global warming, presenting a 50-50 debate where none really existed among experts.

The consequences are profound. A majority of Americans view climate change as a distant problem—something that will affect future generations, people in other countries, anyone but them. This makes it easy to defer action, to treat it as someone else's problem to solve.

Interestingly, this pattern is much less pronounced in the United Kingdom, where media coverage has been more aligned with scientific consensus. The UK approved the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The United States, despite being the world's largest producer of carbon dioxide at the time, did not.

The historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway documented how this happened in their 2010 book "Merchants of Doubt." They showed how a small group of contrarian scientists—many with ties to tobacco companies that had pioneered techniques for manufacturing doubt—deliberately worked to "keep the controversy alive" in media coverage. By demanding that journalists give equal time to skeptics, they created the illusion of scientific disagreement where consensus actually existed.

The Extinction Event

Science journalism is facing an extinction-level threat, and it has nothing to do with asteroids.

In 2011, researchers counted 459 journalists who had written newspaper articles about nanotechnology—a field that involves engineering materials at the scale of atoms and molecules. Of those 459, only seven had written about the topic more than twenty-five times. That's seven people in the entire country with any depth of expertise on a technology that could reshape manufacturing, medicine, and computing.

The situation has only gotten worse. In January 2012, just a week after an analysis showed that worldwide coverage of climate change had been declining for three years, The New York Times announced it was dismantling its environmental desk and reassigning its journalists to other departments. This was the newspaper with the most climate coverage among major American dailies.

In Australia, the collapse has been even more dramatic. As one observer put it: "You need less than one hand to count" the remaining science journalists. Budget cuts at newspapers, the decline of print advertising, the fragmentation of audiences across digital platforms—all of it has hollowed out the profession.

This creates a dangerous feedback loop. With fewer experienced science journalists, there's less high-quality coverage. With less high-quality coverage, the public becomes less informed. And when experiments on improving science journalism become nearly impossible to conduct because there aren't enough science journalists left to study, the profession loses its ability to learn and improve.

The Digital Shift

The news isn't all bad. As traditional media contracted, new platforms emerged.

In 2012, The New York Times won two Pulitzer Prizes for content published by Politico and HuffPost—both online outlets. This signaled a fundamental platform shift. Science information hasn't disappeared; it's migrated online.

Science blogs have become increasingly important, filling gaps left by newspaper cuts. They offer something traditional media often couldn't: ongoing dialogue between scientists and the public. Instead of one-way transmission of information, blogs enable back-and-forth conversation, questions and answers, clarification and debate.

Social media has amplified this. Scientists can now communicate directly with the public, bypassing journalists entirely. During the COVID-19 pandemic, epidemiologists and virologists built huge followings on Twitter, explaining the latest research in real time.

But the digital shift brings its own problems. The sheer volume of online information can bury important findings. Anyone can publish anything, regardless of accuracy. The public doesn't typically search for science information unless it's already being discussed in mainstream media—which means the mainstream media still sets the agenda even as it shrinks.

And here's a crucial point: research shows that after people finish their formal education, mass media becomes their most significant source—often their only source—of information about science. What they learned in high school biology class fades. What they see on the news sticks. This makes the quality of science journalism genuinely consequential for public understanding.

The Credibility Question

Does it matter who writes about science?

Media gatekeepers have long assumed that the public prefers science news written by general reporters rather than by scientists themselves. The thinking goes that scientists are too technical, too dry, too immersed in jargon to connect with ordinary readers.

Research suggests this assumption is wrong. When scientists compared public interest in news stories written by scientists versus stories written by reporters, they found no significant difference. Readers were equally interested in both.

This is encouraging. It suggests the public is ready for substantive science coverage. They don't need everything dumbed down or sensationalized. They want to be informed—and they're willing to engage with complex material if it's presented clearly.

The flip side of this finding is sobering. If the public relies heavily on science journalism for information about scientific findings and processes—and they do—then inaccurate or misleading coverage has real consequences. "The vast majority of non-specialists obtain almost all their knowledge about science from journalists," as one study put it. Journalists serve as "the primary gatekeepers for scientific information."

The gatekeepers are under siege. But the need for what they do has never been greater.

The Open Science Movement

One promising development could reshape science journalism entirely: the push for open science.

Here's the problem. Most scientific research is locked behind paywalls. Want to read the original study that a news article is summarizing? That'll be thirty-five dollars for a single paper, or thousands of dollars for a journal subscription. This creates an absurd situation where science journalism becomes the public's only window into publicly funded research, because the research itself is inaccessible.

The open science movement—which advocates for "free availability and usability of scholarly publications"—aims to change this. If scientific papers were freely accessible to anyone, the public wouldn't have to rely solely on journalists' interpretations. They could check sources themselves, read the actual findings, see what the caveats and limitations were.

This wouldn't eliminate the need for science journalism. Most people don't have time to read technical papers, and interpretation and context would still be valuable. But it would provide a check on potentially biased or inaccurate coverage. Readers could verify.

The Collaboration Experiment

In one of the few experiments conducted with the dwindling population of science journalists, researchers discovered something hopeful. When science journalists networked online—sharing information, checking each other's work, comparing notes—they produced more accurate articles than when working in isolation.

This suggests a path forward. The web enables collaboration that wasn't possible when journalists worked in separate newsrooms in separate cities. Science journalists can now form virtual communities, pooling expertise and catching each other's errors.

"After a lot of hand wringing about the newspaper industry about six years ago, I take a more optimistic view these days," said Cristine Russell, president of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing. "The world is online. Science writers today have the opportunity to communicate not just with their audience but globally."

The old model of science journalism—a single reporter working a beat at a single newspaper—may be dying. But something new might be emerging from its ashes: a global network of specialists, fact-checking each other, building on each other's work, connected by the same internet that disrupted their industry in the first place.

The Stakes

James Crowther invented science journalism in 1928. Almost a century later, we're still figuring out how to do it right.

The challenges are immense. Science moves fast and journalism moves faster; the values clash. The public needs translation but not oversimplification. Balance sounds fair but can be profoundly misleading. Hype gets attention but erodes trust. Budgets have collapsed, taking expertise with them.

And yet the need has never been more urgent. We face collective decisions about climate change, artificial intelligence, pandemic preparedness, genetic engineering—questions where the science matters enormously and where public understanding could determine our future.

Getting science journalism right isn't just about informing people. It's about enabling democratic deliberation on questions that require scientific literacy. It's about helping individuals make decisions about their own health and lives. It's about ensuring that when the evidence points clearly in one direction, the public knows it.

Crowther told C. P. Scott that he intended to invent science journalism. The invention isn't finished. Each generation of science journalists has to reinvent it for their own time, their own platforms, their own challenges. The job is impossible. It's also essential.