Horgan finds reasons to be optimistic about science writing
In yet another sign of the much-discussed science writing renaissance which may or may not be upon us, Scientific American’s John Horgan blogs that – despite the still-dire economics of reporting on health and science – the young folks entering the profession give him ample reason to be optimistic about the future.
The occasion? The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism’s science writing awards, for which he has often been a judge.
This year [Columbia staff] sent me more submissions, 35, than in any of the previous dozen years I’ve served as a judge. The admissions were also better than ever. And as I told the J-school grads last week when I handed out the awards, I’ve never said that before — or if I did, I was lying. Some of the submissions were so well-written and reported that it was hard to believe rookies produced them, not seasoned pros.
Horgan was particularly gratified to find that so many of the entries were in a critical vein, revealing the limits and consequences of technology rather than simply trumpeting the triumphs of science. Of this year’s three winners, AHCJ members likely will be most interested in Elliot Ross’ work on ghostwriting in the pharmaceutical industry, which was picked up in a condensed form by the Guardian.
Miracles and paradigm shifts: Banned words
Writer Carl Zimmer has posted an “Index of Banned Words” in science writing. Zimmer’s list grew out of one he compiled for his science writing class that has since been expanded by reader suggestions.
Some words and phrases that made the list:
- Missing link
- Seminal
- Impact (verb)
- Demographic leveling
Zimmer clarifies that he doesn’t mean these words should never be used but that writers need to learn to explain science in ways that people can understand:
What I mean is that anyone who wants to learn how to write about science, and to be read by people who aren’t being paid to read, should work hard to learn how to explain science in plain yet elegant English – not by relying on scientific jargon, code-words, or meaningless cliches.
So what words and phrases should be banned – or at least require some thought before using – in health journalism?
(Hat tip to NASW’s “On Science Blogs this Week“)
-
Join us in Atlanta
for Health Journalism 2012
Fellowship applications
due Feb. 27
New at HealthJournalism.org
- Data gives depth to investigation of patient safety
- What reporters should know about Alzheimer’s and related dementias
- Apply for fellowships to attend Health Journalism 2012
- AHCJ asks Supreme Court to permit broadcast of arguments in health reform case
- Tips for print, online journalists to embrace broadcast opportunities
- Numbers reveal how often, or how rarely, states check doctors’ disciplinary records
- How I did it: Falsified charts in nursing homes linked to patient care
- Access Denied: Looking at a lack of health care availability
- Transparency & medical errors: Public reporting of patient harm is a potent force
