What makes a good science story?

Something that feels "alive". The feeling of "aliveness" comes from a cocktail of some or all of
the following:
• The human aspects of the story – the character and personal journey of the protagonist/s – the
scientist perhaps, or the people whose lives will be affected by the science.
• Any inherent elements of drama – for example, seemingly insurmountable obstacles,
competing needs, difficult choices, surprise/reversal, and a sense of urgency.
• The jaw-dropping ingenuity of the science itself.
• The story's newness – if it's not a new story per se, then it should offer a new way into an old
one.
What do you need to know to write well about science?
How to tell a good story. You obviously also have to understand the science and related issues
you're discussing.
How do you choose your opening line?
I tend to write that after the rest of the article is drafted (although I might have an idea of what
kind of thing I want to say). Because the opener is so critical in terms of hooking the reader –
and my best ideas are rarely the ones my mind reaches for automatically – I usually try out a
few approaches before selecting the one that feels most compelling and relevant to what I'm
saying in the story.
How do you get the best out of an interviewee?
It helps to have a clear idea of why I'm writing the article and what I want from the interviewee –
and to explain that clearly to him or her before the interview begins. It also helps to have a list of
questions. Some scientists are naturally great storytellers and you just have to listen but others
– who may have great stories to tell – need a bit more prompting or directing.
How do you use metaphors and analogies in a story?
To give another perspective on the story, and to explain difficult concepts.
What do you leave out of your stories?
It obviously depends on the word count and brief. As a general rule of thumb I leave out things I
can't fit into the narrative without dislocating it and things that don't really illuminate the story I'm
telling, even if they are interesting in themselves.
How do you stay objective and balanced as a writer? Should you?
If I'm assessing a complex situation for which there are no easy answers (that I can see) I would
aim to stay objective and balance different viewpoints and opinions. I might make a stab at the
answer at the end, but would be clear it is a maybe. If I already have a view on the situation
myself, however, I would focus on story elements and opinion supporting that view.
What's the biggest potential pitfall when writing about science?
It's easy to get wrapped up in the technical details of the science and forget the story elements
that bring it to life.
• Penny Bailey is a writer at the Wellcome Trust.
• Read some Penny Bailey – we like Losing Face: the symbolism of facial
mutilation and Disease, immigration and ethnicity in post-colonial England published on the
Wellcome Trust Blog.
• Find out more about how to enter the Wellcome Trust Science Writing Prize, in association
with the Guardian and Observer, on the Wellcome Trust website – the closing date is 28 April
2013.
Be prepared to revise your story after the editor has seen it
What makes a good science story?
There's no one-size-fits-all rule, since stories come in many
flavours, shapes, colours and sizes. There are Eureka moments,
disasters, personal battles, amazing discoveries, baffling
mysteries, power struggles, quirky findings, weird insights, you
name it. Here's one way you can tell: if you find yourself excitedly
recounting a story to a friend who cares not one jot for science,
and they don't reach for their beer in despair, or start twiddling
with their mobile phone, you're in business.
What do you need to know to write well about science?
Whatever the subject, angle, tone, length or style, your story has
to tickle the fancy of your readers and maintain their interest to
the very last word. The aim is not to impress a professor with your
knowledge, amaze your mum or to get something off your chest.
Think hard about your intended audience. They may be ignorant
but they are rarely stupid. They have all kinds of interests and
preoccupations and, when it comes to getting their attention,
these are the best places to start. Remember that they always
have better things to do with their time. If you don't grab them with
your first sentence, you might as well give up.
How do you choose your opening line?
Make sure that it hooks your intended victim from the very first
word. Don't forget that it has to mark the start of a linear, logical
narrative that cuts a clear path through what is often a very
tangled and complex reality. You need to have figured out the
best angle before you write that first line and, as a result, it is the
hardest line you're going to write.
How do you get the best out of an interviewee?
Just remember who you are there to represent: the reader. You
are not trying to impress, but to ask questions that are calculated
to make your interviewee explain a story in a way that informs
your reader, that adds colour, and provides the ammunition you
need to amuse and entertain them too, not just with words but
graphics, boxes, timelines and images. Above all else, it has to
connect with your readers. That's why, at a medical conference,
one of the IVF pioneers was asked by a journalist from the Sun:
"What did it feel like to fertilise the eggs of your patients with your
own sperm and watch the death of your offspring under the
microscope?"
How do you use metaphors and analogies in a story?
Metaphors can help create the illusion of understanding but try
not to make them contrived and remember that they quickly break
down. Never mix 'em.
What do you leave out of your stories?
Anything that draws the reader's attention away from the central
point you are trying to make along with jargon, pomposity,
obscure references, muddled ideas, tangled narratives, lazy
adjectives, Latin and convoluted sentences.
How do you stay objective and balanced as a writer? Should
you?
Despite much pontificating about journalists who write "the truth",
the reality is that only one person knows the Truth and He/She
does not exist. The best you can do is aim for the truth. Attempt to
present the few facts you have uncovered and be as honest and
fair as possible in describing your hazy, parochial glimpse of the
truth. There are often many sides to a story, so cover them too.
What's the biggest potential pitfall when writing about
science?
Ensuring that it is interesting, clear and simple enough to grip a
general reader yet accurate enough to satisfy a Nobel
prizewinner.
• Roger Highfield is director of external affairs at the Science
Museum in London.
• Read some Roger Highfield – we like Sir Paul Nurse: Geneticist
inherits a mystery and Stephen Hawking: driven by a cosmic force
of will, both published in the Telegraph.
• Find out more about how to enter the Wellcome Trust Science
Writing Prize, in association with the Guardian and Observer, on
the Wellcome Trust website – the closing date is 28 April 2013.

What's a good science story?

Something that makes me think, "Wow, that's amazing!". That is,
stories about exciting new research that reveals some new insight
into nature. The natural world is a wonderful, complex thing, and
scientists try to divine its little secrets. A good story should not just
explain the science simply and clearly, but also convey this
wonderment.
What do you need to know to write well about science?
How to tell a good story. That requires a good grasp of language,
some understanding of the science you're writing about, and an
ability to "translate" technical information into plain English and
write about it compellingly.
How do you choose your opening line?
When I write news stories, I'll try to write an opening line that
encapsulates the entire story, but this doesn't really work for
longer pieces. For a feature, I might start with an anecdote or
background story about one of the "characters" - something that
emerged during the interview, for example. Whatever it may be,
the opening of a long piece of writing should be as compelling as
possible. It should draw the reader in, and make them want to find
out more. This can be difficult at times, and for me the opening
often doesn't fall into place until the rest of the article is complete.
How do you get the best out of an interviewee?
I'm still trying to figure this out myself. Generally, I begin by giving
them a bit of background information about myself. Some
researchers aren't too fond of reporters, so knowing that I have a
background in neurosciencesometimes puts them at ease and
makes them more willing to divulge information.
I always ask them the reasons behind their work – why they
decided to do these particular experiments, and so on – and this
often gives me interesting background. Other questions I always
ask include, "What was your most surprising observation/finding,
and why?" "How does this fit into current thinking about X or Y?"
and "What are you planning to do next?"
How do you use metaphors and analogies in a story?
Metaphors and analogies can be very useful, and are probably
most effective when they make a tricky concept easier to
understand. I write almost exclusively about neuroscience, and
often use ants as an analogy for how the brain works. An
individual ant is pretty insignificant, but a whole colony of ants can
do remarkable things, and the same is true of neurons in the
brain. I don't use metaphors and analogies enough, and should
make a point of doing so more often.
What do you leave out of your stories?
Deciding what to leave out can also be tricky. I like to give a lot of
background information, and some might argue that I could cut
back on that. More often I tend to leave out overly technical
details about the methods and so on.
Last year, for example, I wrote a blog post about how researchers
areusing genetically engineered rabies viruses to investigate
neural circuits. It's pretty technical stuff, and I went into some
detail about how they went about doing it. Someone left a
comment saying that I'd explained the molecular biology very
well, but had neglected to mention the fact that rabies are RNA
not DNA viruses. I replied, saying that the post was already
complicated enough, and that mentioning this would have
complicated it even further without adding any real value.
How do you stay objective and balanced as a writer? Should
you?
I think it is important to stay objective. Scientific results are rarely
cut and dried – they often raise more questions than they answer,
 and can be contradictory – so I think one should try to give both
sides of the story and consider alternative interpretations.
What's the biggest potential pitfall when writing about
science?
Getting carried away with fanciful interpretations or potential
applications. Neuroscience and biomedicine are advancing at an
incredible pace, and there's a huge amount of spectacular
research being done. I often speculate about what some new
research might lead to, but at the same time I try to cover the
caveats that come with it – the drawbacks, limitations and
alternative explanations if there are any.
• Moheb Costandi writes the Neurophilosophy blog for the
Guardian
• Read some Mo Costandi. We like Microbes Manipulate Your
Mindpublished in Scientific American
There are many types of news releases, including:
 The hard news release, which reports on a discovery published in a
scientific journal or discussed in a talk at a scientific conference
 The feature release, which describes work in progress and is not
generally tied to a newly published result
 The backgrounder, a nuts-and-bolts history of a piece of research
 The personal profile, which describes the scientist’s professional and
private worlds.
 The Q&A, which offers a scientist's opinions and explanations in his/her
own words
 The media alert, which notifies journalists of a news conference or other
event
 The grant/gift announcement, which describes a new gift or grant,
explaining the objectives of the new research
 The award announcement, which announces an honor or prize given a
scientist
 The tipsheet, a collection of short items alerting journalists to work
being presented at a conference or in a journal issue
Successful science journalism requires more than simply writing
about an exciting topic. It is as much about selling a story to
editors as it is actually writing. You need to plan how to proceed
as early as possible — and be ready to revise this plan whenever
necessary.
Choosing and pitching a story
Before committing to a topic, ask yourself how you will pitch the
story you want to tell, and how it fits your target outlet. Different
news outlets will be interested in different topics or aspects of a
debate. Make sure that your story will interest them by looking at
what they've already published. How do they present stories?
What angle do they take? This will help you focus and limit your
workload.

Make sure you know who the readers are, and be clear why they
would be interested in your story. Do they read about science
regularly? Knowing your audience helps you decide what to
explore in depth, and which aspects are less important.

Think about how deep you need to dig into the science and
methods used. Often it's the implications that are important,
though sometimes the science itself is extremely relevant. For
example, a story on potential AIDS vaccines could explain why
these are difficult to test, and discuss when they might become
widely available. On the other hand, a new regional solar-panel
project does not need you to report details about the materials
used. Rather, you should focus on what the technology means to
the local economy and peoples' daily lives.

Every story needs to have an 'angle' or perspective. There are

always many ways to tell a story. For example, you could highlight
a trend or scientific controversy, or put research into context.
Summarising the story in a single sentence can often clarify your
perspective and help you decide which angle to take.

You should also consider what type of article to write. If you

simply need to present news, or put it in context, a short news
story is often the best format. If there is a longer story to be told
that requires more information and background, a feature may be
better. Or if yours is a subjective opinion, present it as a
commentary piece. Find and read a published story in your
chosen format. This will help consolidate your ideas and make
your outline fit the news outlet's style.

Whether the story will be published in print or online may also

affect your writing. The golden rule of thumb is that you need only
half the words for online text, but more structure.

Finally, find out who the editor is. They are more likely to be
enthusiastic if you know what their interests are and what they
have previously published.

Once you have a clear story, 'pitch' it to the editor. Explaining on

the phone why it is relevant and topical, and how you plan to
approach it, can be more effective than emailing. Offer a short
outline, be open to suggestions, and make sure you agree how to
proceed. Stay in touch in case the story, or your angle, changes.
Planning your own research
If you are writing a long news story or feature article, make sure
you do your research and spend time structuring and planning the
article. Write down who you need to talk to and an order for
meeting or calling them. Try to get all sides of the story by talking
to experts from different institutions or research groups.

Often, talking to scientists alone will not give you the full picture.
For example, if you are writing about the $100 laptop (an initiative
to develop cheap and flexible computers for poor children) you
might talk to computer experts as well as lawyers, teachers, and
people from nongovernmental organisations.
Structuring your article
Gather your raw material, then list the essential facts in a
coherent order. This rough outline will help create a first draft,
even if you change your structure later.

The beginning must entice the reader into reading on. It is usually
best to get straight to the point, telling readers what the news is
quickly. But think, early on in the process, about how an article
might end, especially if you are writing a longer news story or
feature article. You might sum up in a single sentence, or point to
future developments. Try to surprise or entertain the readers
before you let them go.
Effective writing
A well-written story is not simply a list of facts — it should follow a
clear thread, making it obvious to the reader why one paragraph
follows the next. Good science writing relates seemingly abstract
facts and figures to the reader's daily life and imagination. You
can bring a story to life by describing and quoting people.

If you've used a real life situation to illustrate your story, make

sure it runs through the whole article. It should lead directly to
what you wanted to report, helping to hold the reader's interest.

Well-chosen analogies and metaphors can also help. But make

sure you use images and analogies that your audience can relate
to. For example, comparing the acceleration of an astronaut to the
strength of the Earth's gravitational field may simply confuse your
reader. And calling the human genetic code 'the book of life' may
only make sense to those who already understand the issue.

Dealing with numbers is especially tricky. They often need

simplifying, for example, 51.3 per cent is 'about half'. In most
cases you can judge when a number needs to be quoted with
complete precision and when it can be rounded.

Be sceptical of statistics — make sure you understand what they

actually mean, and how certain they are.
Revisions
Do not send your article to the editor straight away! If possible,
leave it for a day or two. You can usually considerably improve
your style and content if you re-read work later, double-checking
your facts, especially spellings of names and scientific terms.

Editors have their own take on a story and some may want to
actively shape your piece, perhaps requesting additional work.

Delivering a science story is a dynamic and creative process.

However long you have been in the business, the editorial
process is still a challenging one. But the more experienced you
are, the better your instinct for anticipating editors' questions
becomes. Remember, these let you address the readers'
probable questions before publication. Do not be discouraged —
revisions are standard editorial practice.

Jan Lublinski is a science journalist