View source for Science journalism

{{short description|Journalism genre}}
{{redirect-distinguish|Science writing|Scientific writing}}
{{broader|Science communication}}
{{Cleanup rewrite|date=August 2011}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2020}}
[[Image:Emma Reh (1896-1982).jpg|thumb|upright|[[Emma Reh]] (1896–1982) was a science journalist for the [[Science Service]] in the 1920s and 1930s. Here she can be seen reporting on an [[archaeological site]] in [[Oaxaca]] for ''[[Science News]]''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Emma Reh (1896–1982)|url=http://siarchives.si.edu/collections/siris_arc_289408|work=Smithsonian Institution Archives|publisher=[[Smithsonian Institution]]|access-date=11 July 2013}}</ref>]]
{{Journalism sidebar}}
'''Science journalism''' conveys reporting about [[science]] to the public.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gcu.edu/blog/engineering-technology/what-science-journalism|title=What is science journalism|website=gcu.edu|date=8 February 2019 |access-date=17 January 2023}}</ref> The field typically involves interactions between [[scientist]]s, [[journalist]]s and the public.

==Origins==
Modern science journalism originated in weather and other natural history observations, as well as  reports of new scientific findings, reported by [[almanac]]s and other news writing in the centuries following the advent of the printing press.

One early example dates back to ''[[Digdarshan]]'' (means showing the direction), which was an educational monthly magazine that started publication in 1818 from Srirampore, Bengal, India. ''Digdarshan'' carried articles on different aspects of science, such as plants, steam boat, etc. It was available in Bengali, Hindi and English languages.<ref>(Patairiya M.K. 1990)</ref>

In the U.S., ''[[Scientific American]]'' was founded in 1845, in another early example. One of the occasions an article was attributed to a 'scientific correspondent' was "A Gale in the Bay of Biscay" by [[William Crookes]] which appeared in ''[[The Times]]'' on 18 January 1871, page 7.<ref name="Becker">{{cite book |last1=Becker |first1=Barbara J. |title=Unravelling Starlight: William and Margaret Huggins and the Rise of the New Astronomy |date=2011 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9781139497251 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lNkbvQCefQ4C&pg=PA169|page=169}}</ref>

[[Thomas Henry Huxley]] (1825–1895) and [[John Tyndall]] (1820–1893) were scientists who were greatly involved in journalism and [[Peter Chalmers Mitchell]] (1864–1945) was Scientific Correspondent for ''The Times'' from 1918 to 1935.<ref name="Gristock">Gristock, J. (2006) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230669213_JG_Crowther_Kuhn_and_systems_of_mediation_An_examination_of_the_science-journalism-innovation_relationship "J.G. Crowther, Kuhn and Systems of Mediation"], paper presented at the Scientists and Social Commitment Conference, Science Museum, London, 15–17 September.</ref>

However it was with [[James Crowther]]'s appointment as the 'scientific correspondent' of ''[[The Manchester Guardian]]'' by [[C. P. Scott]] in 1928 that science journalism really took shape. Crowther related that Scott had declared that there was "no such thing" as science journalism, at which point Crowther replied that he intended to invent it. Scott was convinced and then employed him.<ref name="Gristock" />

==Aims==
{{blockquote|Science values detail, precision, the impersonal, the technical, the lasting, facts, numbers and being right. Journalism values brevity, approximation, the personal, the colloquial, the immediate, stories, words and being right now. There are going to be tensions.|[[Quentin Cooper]], of [[BBC Radio 4]]'s [[Material World (radio programme)|Material World]]|<ref>{{cite news |url=http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/09/27/science-and-the-media-%e2%80%93-an-uncomfortable-fit/ |title=Science and the media – an uncomfortable fit By Sallie Robbins |publisher=Blogs.independent.co.uk |date=2011-09-27 |access-date=2013-07-06 |location=London |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928102934/http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/09/27/science-and-the-media-%E2%80%93-an-uncomfortable-fit/ |archive-date=28 September 2011}}</ref>}}

The aim of a [[science journalist]] is to render very detailed, specific, and often [[jargon]]-laden information produced by scientists into a form that non-scientists can understand and appreciate while still communicating the information accurately. One way science journalism can achieve that is to avoid an [[information deficit model]] of communication, which assumes a top-down, one-way direction of communicating information that limits an open dialogue between knowledge holders and the public. One such way of sparking an inclusive dialogue between science and society that leads to a broader uptake of post-high school science discoveries is science blogs.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Angler|first=Martin W.|url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315671338/science-journalism-martin-angler|title=Science Journalism : An Introduction|date=2017-06-14|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-315-67133-8|location=London|language=en|doi=10.4324/9781315671338}}</ref> Science journalists face an increasing need to convey factually correct information through storytelling techniques in order to tap into both the rational and emotional side of their audiences, the latter of which to some extent ensuring that the information uptake persists.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Angler|first=Martin W.|url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781351035101/telling-science-stories-martin-angler|title=Telling Science Stories : Reporting, Crafting and Editing for Journalists and Scientists|date=2020-03-13|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-351-03510-1|location=London|language=en|doi=10.4324/9781351035101|s2cid=243084507 }}</ref>

Science journalists often have training in the scientific disciplines that they cover. Some have earned a degree in a scientific field before becoming journalists or exhibited talent in writing about science subjects. However, good preparation for interviews and even deceptively simple questions such as "What does this mean to the people on the street?" can often help a science journalist develop material that is useful for the intended audience.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-04-29 |title=Science journalism: A remedy for lack of reliable, trustworthy information in the media? |url=https://www.media.ba/en/magazin/science-journalism-remedy-lack-reliable-trustworthy-information-media |access-date=2023-05-04 |website=MC_ONLINE |language=en}}</ref>

==Status==
With budget cuts at major newspapers and other media, there are fewer working science journalists employed by traditional print and broadcast media than before.<ref name="ibtimes1">{{cite web|last=Zara|first=Christopher|title=Remember Newspaper Science Sections? They're Almost All Gone|url=http://www.ibtimes.com/print/remember-newspaper-science-sections-theyre-almost-all-gone-1005680|work=International Business Times|date=10 January 2013|access-date=10 May 2013}}</ref> Similarly, there are currently very few journalists in traditional media outlets that write multiple articles on emerging science, such as [[nanotechnology]].

In 2011, there were 459 journalists who had written a newspaper article covering nanotechnology, of whom 7 wrote about the topic more than 25 times.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Dudo, A. D.|author2=Dunwoody, S.|author3=Scheufele, D. A.|s2cid=143289969|name-list-style=amp|title=The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. newspaper coverage of nanotechnology|journal=Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly|volume=88|year=2011|issue=1|pages=55–75|doi=10.1177/107769901108800104}}</ref>

In January 2012, just a week after ''[https://www.dailyclimate.org/ The Daily Climate]'' reported that worldwide [[media coverage of climate change|coverage of climate change]] continued a three-year slide in 2012<ref>{{cite web|last=Fischer|first=Douglas|title=Climate coverage, dominated by weird weather, falls further in 2012|url=http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/01/2012-climate-change-reporting|access-date=10 May 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130515043156/http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/01/2012-climate-change-reporting|archive-date=15 May 2013}}</ref> and that among the five largest US dailies, the ''[[The New York Times|New York Times]]'' published the most stories and had the biggest increase in coverage,<ref>{{cite web|title=MEDIA COVERAGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING|url=http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/media_coverage/us/|publisher=Center for Science and Technology Policy Research}}</ref> that newspaper announced that it was dismantling its environmental desk and merging its journalists with other departments.<ref>{{cite web|last=Bagley|first=Katherine|title=New York Times Dismantles Its Environment Desk: Times says demise of the nine-person team, created in 2009, won't affect climate coverage|date=11 January 2013|url=http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130111/new-york-times-dismantles-environmental-desk-journalism-fracking-climate-change-science-global-warming-economy|publisher=Inside Climate News|access-date=10 May 2013}}</ref>

News coverage on science by traditional media outlets, such as newspapers, magazines, radio and news broadcasts is being replaced by online sources. In April 2012, the ''New York Times'' was awarded two Pulitzer Prizes for content published by ''[[Politico]]'' and ''The Huffington Post'' (now ''[[HuffPost]]'') both online sources, a sign of the platform shift by the media outlet.

Science information continues to be widely available to the public online. The increase in access to scientific studies and findings causes science journalism to adapt. "In many countries the public's main source of information about science and technology is the mass media."<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Barel-Ben David|first1=Yael|last2=Garty|first2=Erez S.|last3=Baram-Tsabari|first3=Ayelet|date=2020-01-08|editor-last=Zollo|editor-first=Fabiana|title=Can scientists fill the science journalism void? Online public engagement with science stories authored by scientists|journal=PLOS ONE|language=en|volume=15|issue=1|pages=e0222250|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0222250|issn=1932-6203|pmc=6948730|pmid=31914124|bibcode=2020PLoSO..1522250B|doi-access=free}}</ref> Science journalists must compete for attention with other stories that are perceived as more entertaining. Science information cannot always be sensationalized to capture attention and the sheer amount of available information can cause important findings to be buried. The general public does not typically search for science information unless it is mentioned or discussed in mainstream media first.<ref name=":1" /> However, the [[mass media]] are the most important or only source of scientific information for people after completing their education.<ref name="Guenther 40–59">{{Cite journal|last1=Guenther|first1=Lars|last2=Bischoff|first2=Jenny|last3=Löwe|first3=Anna|last4=Marzinkowski|first4=Hanna|last5=Voigt|first5=Marcus|date=2019-01-02|title=Scientific Evidence and Science Journalism: Analysing the representation of (un)certainty in German print and online media|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1353432|journal=Journalism Studies|language=en|volume=20|issue=1|pages=40–59|doi=10.1080/1461670X.2017.1353432|s2cid=197684574|issn=1461-670X|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

A common misconception about public interest surrounds science journalism. Those who choose which news stories are important typically assume the public is not as interested in news written by a scientist and would rather receive news stories that are written by general reporters instead. The results of a study conducted comparing public interest between news stories written by scientists and stories written by reporters concluded there is no significant difference.<ref name=":1" /> The public was equally interested in news stories written by a reporter and a scientist. This is a positive finding for science journalism because it shows it is increasingly relevant and is relied upon by the public to make informed decisions. "The vast majority of non-specialists obtain almost all their knowledge about science from journalists, who serve as the primary gatekeepers for scientific information."<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Elliott|first=Kevin C.|date=2019-11-20|title=Science Journalism, Value Judgments, and the Open Science Movement|journal=Frontiers in Communication|volume=4|pages=71|doi=10.3389/fcomm.2019.00071|s2cid=208176666|issn=2297-900X|doi-access=free}}</ref> Ethical and accurate reporting by science journalists is vital to keeping the public informed.

Science journalism is reported differently than traditional [[journalism]]. Conventionally, journalism is seen as more ethical if it is balanced reporting and includes information from both sides of an issue. Science journalism has moved to an authoritative type of reporting where they present information based on [[peer review]]ed evidence and either ignore the conflicting side or point out their lack of evidence. Science journalism continues to adapt to a [[slow journalism]] method that is very time-consuming but contains higher quality information from peer-reviewed sources. They also practice sustainable journalism that focuses on solutions rather than only the problem.<ref name="Brüggemann">{{Citation|last=Brüggemann|first=Michael|title=Shifting Roles of Science Journalists Covering Climate Change|date=2017-04-26|url=https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-354|encyclopedia=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science|publisher=Oxford University Press|language=en|doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.354|isbn=978-0-19-022862-0|access-date=2020-11-16|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Presenting information from both sides of the issue can confuse readers on what the actual findings show. Balanced reporting can actually lead to unbalanced reporting because it gives attention to extreme minority views in the science community, implying that both sides have an equal number of supporters. It can give the false impression that an opposing minority viewpoint is valid.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Boykoff|first1=Maxwell T|last2=Rajan|first2=S Ravi|date=March 2007|title=Signals and noise: Mass-media coverage of climate change in the USA and the UK|url= |journal=EMBO Reports|language=en|volume=8|issue=3|pages=207–211|doi=10.1038/sj.embor.7400924|issn=1469-221X|pmc=1808044|pmid=17330062}}</ref>

For example, a 2019 survey of [[Surveys of scientists' views on climate change|scientists' views on climate change]] yielded a 100% consensus that global warming is human-caused. However, articles like "Climate Change: A Scientist and Skeptic Exchange Viewpoints," published by [https://dividedwefall.org/ ''Divided We Fall''] in 2018, may unintentionally foster doubt in readers, as this particular scientist "did not say, as the media and the political class has said, that the science is settled."<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Gibbs |first1=Meryl |last2=Wilkes |first2=Robert |last3=Wilkes |first3=Meryl Gibbs and Robert |date=2018-08-20 |title=The Great Climate Change Debate |url=https://dividedwefall.org/political-pen-pals-climate-change-scientist-vs-skeptic/ |access-date=2023-05-04 |website=Divided We Fall |language=en-US}}</ref>

The public benefits from an authoritative reporting style in guiding them to make informed decisions about their lifestyle and health.

Tracking the remaining experienced science journalists is becoming increasingly difficult. For example, in Australia, the number of science journalists has decreased to abysmal numbers: "you need less than one hand to count them."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Leach, J. |date=20 June 2017 |title=Science journalism is in Australia's interest, but needs support to thrive |url=https://theconversation.com/science-journalism-is-in-australias-interest-but-needs-support-to-thrive-79106 |website=The Conversation |access-date=18 March 2019}}</ref> Due to the rapidly decreasing number of science journalists, experiments on ways to improve science journalism are also rare. However, in one of the few experiments conducted with science journalists, when the remaining population of science journalists networked online, they produced more accurate articles than when in isolation.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Novin|first=Alamir|date=17 August 2013|title=DEBATECITED: An empirical experiment into the value of open-source research methods and peer collaboration to science journalism|url=http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/977526/4/DEBATECITED_A1b.pdf|journal=Spectrum. Masters Thesis, Concordia University.}}</ref> New communication environments provide essentially unlimited information on a large number of issues, which can be obtained anywhere and with relatively limited effort. The web also offers opportunities for citizens to connect with others through social media and other 2.0-type tools to make sense of this information.

"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".<ref>{{cite web|last=Zara|first=Christopher|title=Remember Newspaper Science Sections? They're Almost All Gone|url=http://www.ibtimes.com/print/remember-newspaper-science-sections-theyre-almost-all-gone-1005680|work=International Business Times|date=10 January 2013|access-date=13 May 2013}}</ref>

Blog-based science reporting is filling in to some degree, but has problems of its own.<ref>[http://www.thenation.com/article/unpopular-science?page=full "Unpopular Science"], by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, ''The Nation'', 17 Aug. 2009</ref>

One of the main findings is about the controversy surrounding [[climate change]] and how the media affects people's opinions on this topic. Survey and experimental research have discovered connections between exposure to cable and talk show radio channels and views on global warming.  However, early subject analyses noticed that U.S. [[media outlets]] over exaggerate the dispute that surrounds global warming actually existing. A majority of Americans view global warming as an outlying issue that will essentially affect future generations of individuals in other countries.<ref name="ReferenceA">Hmielowski JD, Feldman L, Myers TA, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E. An attack on science? 
	Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public 
	Understanding of Science. 2014;23(7):866-883. {{doi|10.1177/0963662513480091}}</ref> This is a problem considering that they are getting most of their information from these media sources that are opinionated and not nearly as concerned with supplying facts to their viewers. Research found that after people finish their education, the media becomes the most significant, and for many individuals, the sole source of information regarding science, scientific findings and scientific processes.<ref name="Guenther 40–59"/> Many people fail to realize that information about science included from online sources is not always credible.

Since the 1980s, climate science and [[mass media]] have transformed into an increasingly politicized sphere.<ref name="doi.org">Boykoff, M. T., & Rajan, S. R. (2007). Signals and noise. EMBO Reports, 8(3), 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400924</ref> In the United States, Conservatives and Liberals understand global warming differently. Democrats often accept the evidence for global warming and think that it's caused by humans, while not many Republicans believe this. Democrats and liberals have higher and more steady trust in scientists, while conservative Republicans' trust in scientists has been declining.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> However, in the United Kingdom, mass media do not have nearly the impact on people's opinions as in the United States. They have a different attitude towards the environment which prompted them to approve the [[Kyoto Protocol]], which works to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, while the U.S., the world's largest creator of carbon dioxide, has not done so.<ref name="doi.org"/>

The content of news stories regarding climate change are affected by journalistic norms including balance, [[impartiality]], neutrality and objectivity. Balanced reporting, which involves giving equal time to each opposing side of a debate over an issue, has had a rather harmful impact on the media coverage of [[climate science]].<ref name="Brüggemann"/>

===Chocolate hoax===
{{main|John Bohannon#Intentionally misleading chocolate study}}
In 2015, [[John Bohannon]] produced a deliberately bad study to see how a low-quality [[open access]] publisher and the media would pick up their findings. He worked with a film-maker Peter Onneken who was making a film about [[junk science]] in the diet industry with [[Food faddism|fad diets]] becoming headline news despite terrible study design and almost no evidence.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800|title=I Fooled Millions into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How.|author=John Bohannon|work=Io9|date=27 May 2015 }}</ref> He invented a fake "diet institute" that lacks even a website, used the pen name "Johannes Bohannon" and fabricated a press release.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://instituteofdiet.com/2015/03/29/international-press-release-slim-by-chocolate/|title=International Press Release: Slim by Chocolate|work=instituteofdiet.com|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151212010740/http://instituteofdiet.com/2015/03/29/international-press-release-slim-by-chocolate/|archive-date=12 December 2015}}</ref>

===Criticism===
{{see also| Media coverage of climate change}}
Science journalists keep the public informed of scientific advancements and assess the appropriateness of scientific research. However, this work comes with a set of criticisms. Science journalists regularly come under criticism for misleading reporting of scientific stories. All three groups of scientists, journalists and the public often criticize science journalism for bias and inaccuracies. However, with the increasing collaborations online between science journalists there may be potential with removing inaccuracies.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Novin, A.|first=Secko, D.|date=25 November 2012|title=Debate Cited: A First Exploration of a Web Application to Enhance the Production of Science Journalism Students|url=http://cca.kingsjournalism.com/?p=171|journal=Journalism Interest Group|volume=CCA/Groupe d’intérêt en journalisme, ACC Conference Proceedings|issue=2012|access-date=8 September 2016}}</ref>
The 2010 book ''[[Merchants of Doubt]]'' by [[History of science|historians of science]] [[Naomi Oreskes]] and [[Erik M. Conway]] argues that in topics like the [[global warming controversy]], [[tobacco smoking]], [[acid rain]], [[DDT]] and [[ozone depletion]], [[contrarian]] scientists have sought to "keep the controversy alive" in the public arena by demanding that reporters give [[false balance]] to the minority side. Very often, such as with [[climate change]], this leaves the public with the impression that disagreement within the scientific community is much greater than it actually is.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20090203040819/http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=3 February 2009 |title=Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change |author=Peter T. Doran |author2=Maggie Kendall Zimmerman |name-list-style=amp |volume=90 |number=3 |date=2009-01-20}}</ref> Science is based on experimental [[evidence]] and [[Test method|testing]], and disputation is a normal activity.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/series/badscience |title=Bad science &#124; Science |work=The Guardian|date= 27 July 2007|access-date=2013-07-06 |location=London}}</ref>

Scholars have criticized science journalists for:

* Uncritical reporting<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Racine|first1=Eric|last2=Gareau|first2=Isabelle|last3=Doucet|first3=Hubert|last4=Laudy|first4=Danielle|last5=Jobin|first5=Guy|last6=Schraedley-Desmond|first6=Pamela|date=March 2006|title=Hyped biomedical science or uncritical reporting? Press coverage of genomics (1992–2001) in Québec|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.07.024|journal=Social Science & Medicine|volume=62|issue=5|pages=1278–1290|doi=10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.07.024|pmid=16174544|issn=0277-9536|url-access=subscription}}</ref>
* Emphasizing frames of scientific progress and economic prospect<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Nisbet|first1=Matthew C.|last2=Lewenstein|first2=Bruce V.|date=June 2002|title=Biotechnology and the American Media|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107554700202300401|journal=Science Communication|volume=23|issue=4|pages=359–391|doi=10.1177/107554700202300401|s2cid=145193488|issn=1075-5470|url-access=subscription}}</ref>
* Not presenting a range of expert opinion<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Holtzman|first1=Neil A.|last2=Bernhardt|first2=Barbara A.|last3=Mountcastle-Shah|first3=Eliza|last4=Rodgers|first4=Joann E.|last5=Tambor|first5=Ellen|last6=Geller|first6=Gail|date=2005|title=The Quality of Media Reports on Discoveries Related to Human Genetic Diseases|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000086756|journal=Public Health Genomics|volume=8|issue=3|pages=133–144|doi=10.1159/000086756|pmid=16113530|s2cid=24862730|issn=1662-4246|url-access=subscription}}</ref>
* Having preferences toward positive messages<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Nicholls|first=James|date=2010-09-07|title=UK news reporting of alcohol: An analysis of television and newspaper coverage|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09687631003796453|journal=Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy|volume=18|issue=3|pages=200–206|doi=10.3109/09687631003796453|s2cid=143454575|issn=0968-7637|url-access=subscription}}</ref>
* Reporting unrealistic timelines and engaging in the production of a "cycle of hype"<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bubela|first=Tania|date=2009|title=Science Communication Reconsidered|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19513051/|journal=Nature Biotechnology|volume=27|issue=6|pages=514–518|doi=10.1038/nbt0609-514|pmid=19513051|s2cid=510676|via=Pubmed}}</ref>

Science journalists can be seen as the gatekeepers of scientific information. Just like traditional journalists, science journalists are responsible for what truths reach the public.

Scientific information is often costly to access. This is counterproductive to the goals of science journalism. [[Open science]], a movement for "free availability and usability of scholarly publications," seeks to counteract the accessibility issues of valuable scientific information.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Elliott|first=Kevin C.|date=2019-11-20|title=Science Journalism, Value Judgments, and the Open Science Movement|journal=Frontiers in Communication|volume=4|doi=10.3389/fcomm.2019.00071|s2cid=208176666|issn=2297-900X|doi-access=free}}</ref> Freely accessible scientific journals will decrease the public's reliance on potentially biased popular media for scientific information.

Many [[List of science magazines|science magazines]], along with Newspapers like ''The New York Times'' and [[popular science]] shows like [[Nova (American TV series)|PBS Nova]] tailor their content to relatively highly educated audiences.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/science_needs_a_storyline.php|title=Science Needs a Storyline|work=Columbia Journalism Review}}</ref> Many universities and research institutions focus much of their media outreach efforts on coverage in such outlets. Some government departments require journalists to gain clearance to interview a scientist, and require that a [[press secretary]] listen in on phone conversations between government funded scientists and journalists.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cjr.org/feature/transparency_watch_a_closed_door.php|title=Transparency Watch: A Closed Door|work=Columbia Journalism Review}}</ref>

Many [[pharmaceutical marketing]] representatives have come under fire for offering free meals to doctors in order to promote new drugs.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=715157|title=Physician–Industry Relations. Part 1: Individual Physicians|year=2002|doi=10.7326/0003-4819-136-5-200203050-00014|last1=Coyle|first1=Susan L.|journal=Annals of Internal Medicine|volume=136|issue=5|pages=396–402|pmid=11874314|s2cid=23108561|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=Attitudes and Relationship between Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry in a Public General Hospital in Lima, Peru | pmc=4076259 | pmid=24978481 | doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0100114 | volume=9 | issue=6 | year=2014 | journal=PLOS ONE | pages=e100114 | last1 = De Ferrari | first1 = A | last2 = Gentille | first2 = C | last3 = Davalos | first3 = L | last4 = Huayanay | first4 = L | last5 = Malaga | first5 = G| bibcode=2014PLoSO...9j0114D | doi-access=free }}</ref> Critics of science journalists have argued that they should disclose whether industry groups have paid for a journalist to travel, or has received free meals or other gifts.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cjr.org/criticism/science_journalism_conflicts_of_interest.php|title=Where do science journalists draw the line?|work=Columbia Journalism Review}}</ref>

Science journalism finds itself under a critical eye due to the fact that it combines the necessary tasks of a journalist along with the investigative process of a scientist.

=== Science journalist responsibility ===
{{Further|Scientific integrity}}
Science journalists offer important contributions to the open science movement by using the Value Judgement Principle (VJP).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Elliott |first=Kevin C. |date=2019 |title=Science Journalism, Value Judgments, and the Open Science Movement |journal=Frontiers in Communication |volume=4 |doi=10.3389/fcomm.2019.00071 |issn=2297-900X |doi-access=free }}</ref> Science journalists are responsible for "identifying and explaining major [[value judgment]]s for members of the public." In other words, science journalists must make judgments such as what is good and bad (right and wrong). This is a very significant role because it helps "equip non-specialists to draw on scientific information and make decisions that accord with their own values".<ref name=":0" /> While scientific information is often portrayed in quantitative terms and can be interpreted by experts, the audience must ultimately decide how to feel about the information.
Most science journalists begin their careers as either a scientist or a journalist and transition to science communication.<ref>Zivkovic, Bora.[http://scienceprogress.org/2010/12/the-line-between-science-and-journalism-is-getting-blurry-again "The Line Between Science and Journalism is Getting Blurry Again"],"Science Progress", 21 December 2010.</ref>
One area in which science journalists seem to support varying sides of an issue is in risk communication. Science journalists may choose to highlight the amount of risk that studies have uncovered while others focus more on the benefits depending on audience and framing. Science journalism in contemporary risk societies leads to the institutionalisation of mediated scientific public spheres which exclusively discuss science and technology related issues.<ref name=":2">Shiju Sam Varughese. 2017. ''Contested Knowledge: Science, Media, and Democracy in Kerala''. Oxford University Press, New Delhi</ref> This also leads to the development of new professional relationship between scientists and journalists, which is mutually beneficial.<ref name=":2" />

==Types==
There are many different examples of science writing. A few examples include [[feature writing]], [[risk communication]], [[blog]]s, [[science book]]s, [[scientific journal]]s, [[Podcast|science podcasts]] and [[List of science magazines|science magazine]]s.

== Notable science journalists ==
{{main category|Science journalists}}
{{category see also|Science writers}}
* [[Natalie Angier]], a science journalist for ''[[The New York Times]]''
* [[Isaac Asimov]], American science writer
* [[Philip Ball]], English science writer
* [[Jules Bergman]], a science journalist for [[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]] 
* [[Christopher Bird]]
* [[David Bodanis]], known for his [[microphotography (literature)|microphotographic]] style
* [[David Bradley (UK journalist)]]
* [[William Broad]], a science journalist for ''The New York Times''
* [[Deborah Byrd]], of the ''[[Earth & Sky]]'' radio series
* [[Peter Calamai]], science journalist for the ''[[Toronto Star]]''
* [[Nigel Calder]]
* [[Siri Carpenter]]
* [[Marcus Chown]]
* [[Wilson da Silva]], editor and co-founder of ''[[Cosmos magazine]]''
* [[Claudia Dreifus]]
* [[David Ewing Duncan]]
* [[Gregg Easterbrook]]
* [[Dan Fagin]]
* [[Kitty Ferguson]]
* [[Timothy Ferris]], science writer, most often on [[astronomy|astronomical]] topics
* [[Albrecht Fölsing]]
* [[Ben Goldacre]]
* [[Gina Kolata]], science journalist for ''The New York Times''
* [[Robert Krulwich]]
* [[Robert Kunzig]]
* [[Duncan Lunan]]
* [[Katherine McAlpine]]
* [[Bob McDonald (science journalist)|Bob McDonald]], Canadian science journalist, host of ''Quirks & Quarks''
* [[Steve Mirsky]], columnist for ''[[Scientific American]]''
* [[Chris Mooney (journalist)|Chris Mooney]], science journalist and author
* [[Michelle Nijhuis]]
* [[Dennis Overbye]] of ''The New York Times''
* [[Peter Hadfield (journalist)|Peter Hadfield]], freelance journalist and ex-geologist, known for his YouTube channel 'Potholer54'
* [[Michael Pollan]]
* [[David Quammen]], science, nature and travel writer
* [[Mary Roach]]
* [[Matt Ridley]], science journalist and author, columnist at the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''
* [[Kirsten Sanford]]
* [[Rebecca Skloot]] 
* [[Meredith Small]]
* [[Ars Technica#Staff|John Timmer]]
* [[Nicholas Wade]], a science journalist for ''The New York Times''
* [[Robyn Williams]]
* [[Carl Zimmer]]
* [[Nagendra Vijay]]

==See also==
{{Portal|Journalism}}
{{div col}}
* [[Academic bias]]
* ''[[Columbia Journalism Review]]''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://crj.org/|title=Community Resources for Justice|work=crj.org}}</ref>
* [[False balance]]
* ''[[Frontiers of Science]]'', defunct illustrated comic strip
* [[Further research is needed]]
* ''[[Matter (online magazine)|MATTER]]'', magazine
* [[Knight Science Journalism Fellowships]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ksj.mit.edu/resources/|title=Being a Science Journalist|work=ksj.mit.edu}}</ref> a science journalism fellowship program launched in 1983
* [[Open science]]
* [[Popular science]]
* [[Public awareness of science]]
* [[Science by press conference]]
* [[Science communication]]
* [[Scientific literature]]
* [[Science Writing]]
* [[Undark Magazine]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://undark.org/article/undark-science-journalism-matters/|title=Why Science Journalism Matters|work=undark.org|date=17 March 2016}}</ref> science magazine published under the auspices of the Knight Science Journalism Fellowship program
{{div col end}}

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
{{commons category|Science journalists}}
{{Prone to spam|date=November 2015}}
<!--     {{No more links}}

       Please be cautious adding more external links.

Wikipedia is not a collection of links and should not be used for advertising.

     Excessive or inappropriate links will be removed.

 See [[Wikipedia:External links]] and [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details.

If there are already suitable links, propose additions or replacements on
the article's talk page, or submit your link to the relevant category at
DMOZ (dmoz.org) and link there using {{Dmoz}}.

-->

==Further reading==
* {{cite journal|last1=Brainard|first1=Curtis|title=Nature's Artificial Divide|journal=Columbia Journalism Review|date=20 March 2009|url=http://archives.cjr.org/the_observatory/natures_artificial_divide.php|language=en}}
* {{cite web|last1=Yong|first1=Ed|title=On the Origin of Science Writers|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/on-the-origin-of-science-writers|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210311052817/https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/on%2Dthe%2Dorigin%2Dof%2Dscience%2Dwriters|url-status=dead|archive-date=11 March 2021|publisher=National Geographic Phenomena Blog|date=29 July 2010}}

{{Science and the public|state=autocollapse}}
{{Journalism}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Science Journalism}}
[[Category:Journalism by field]]
[[Category:Science writing| ]]