A Field Guide for Science Writers: The Official Guide of the National Association of Science Writers
Reviewed by Julie Kinyoun
Several
commercials on Web sites and at conferences and casual conversation convinced
me to order a copy of A Field Guide for Science Writers, edited
by Deborah Blum and Mary Knudson, from Oxford University Press. My plans
to pursue science writing coincided with many acquaintances advocating
the Field Guide. The Santa Fe Science Writing Conference loomed
as a date by which I hoped to finish the book. Keay Davidson and Sandra
Blakeslee, both authors of chapters in the book, were teaching at the
Santa Fe Conference workshop. After reading this book, I hoped to converse
with both of them about their areas of specialty.
Not
only did the book prepare me for conversing with the instructors, it introduced
me to areas of science writing and issues I had never before considered.
The
book is divided into sections with subtopic headings. The headings include
"Getting Started," "Techniques of the Trade," "Covering
Stories in Science," and "Working Outside the Media." A
different science writer writes each chapter about an area of expertise.
Especially useful were chapters about coauthorships, freelancing as a
writer, reporting on neuroscience, and investigative journalism.
Occasionally,
the wide variety of topics and the frequent change in voice became distracting.
The massive amount of information seemed more overwhelming because of
these two changing elements. However, in this format, more perspectives,
cautionary tales, and general information were disseminated.
A reader
can choose a topic of interest and follow any chapter as an isolated story.
Reading in this format, the topics could vary from "Science in Newspapers"
by Boyce Rensberger to "Techniques on Voicing Opinion on Science:
Science Columns" by Tom Siegfried.
Most relevant to my own inquiries was the chapter on investigative journalism
because it explained how to tackle a story in an expository fashion. Deborah
Blum begins the piece with three essential questions following a short
introduction: What does it mean? Is it the truth or even close? Can it
do harm? Good science writing relies on the initial questions asked by
the reporter. Blum states that, although "breathless stories"
are enticing, each must be rooted in reality and truth. Support of the
public understanding of science can thrive only when science writing is
based in truth and reality.
A personal experience of faulty reporting supports Blum's claims of the
importance of veracity. A young, injured boy's parents were furious when
she credited his discovery to the police instead of his valiant father.
Despite this incident, she left her job at that newspaper as a respected
journalist. By concentrating on truth, she proved during the rest of her
assignment that she could report accurately. Her conclusion: people will
forgive and forget and always appreciate a thorough beat reporter.
A thorough beat reporter always develops relationships with sources to
gain the maximum amount of information possible. In journalism classes,
the approach to these relationships is explored. Identifying your style
and realizing when it does and does not work is important. Determining
which relationships are capable of cultivation and which is a single opportunity
to perform a confrontational interview can influence the success of any
interaction. Blum advises a chatty and conversational demeanor until the
responses become hostile, at which point a more direct approach is necessary.
The goal is to attain all the information before the source walks away.
Even before the interviewing begins, however, Blum emphasizes the importance
of recognizing a subject worthy of study. A warning signal is always the
feeling that something is too fantastical to even investigate.
Blum concludes her chapter with a discussion of the use of good documentation.
She answers her own question, "Does investigative reporting require
masses of documents?" Her unstated conclusion is to gather as much
concise information as possible.
Often, it saves time to obtain paperwork through a Freedom of Information
officer. This person can direct a writer to the most pertinent sources
of information.
Sometimes, in collecting the documentation, the writer realizes the slant
of the story is different than originally proposed. Blum recounts a tale
of collecting paperwork for more than a year only to find that her thorough
search intimidated people. This intimidation caused her to resort to presenting
samples and references to potential interviewees to reestablish her credibility.
Slowly, she built a base of people interested in helping her with her
project.
As a qualifier to her plug for gathering documents, she reminds readers
not to be misled by information. Sometimes material is misleading.
Blum summarizes and closes with an overview of people's opinions on investigative
science journalism. Some say it is anti-intellectual while others wish
the public would trust the word of scientists. Blum believes that, by
presenting a topic from all angles, the writer makes it real.
This book is recommended for all people interested in public communication
because science writing is an essential part of that field. Those especially
interested in science writing will benefit from the variety of authors,
topics, tones, styles, and personal anecdotes.
