I’m a writer, not a scientist. I just write about science. Because I think science tells us the coolest things on earth — literally. I’m patient enough to weed through dense, nearly impenetrable science papers to try and uncode the words and meaning to find those cool little jewels, those nuggets of information that are the components to a good story, or that provide significant detail. And when I’m interviewing a source, I’m always looking for that special word or phrase that will catch readers attention, and hold it. I struggle with the first few sentences, the lede, with every story I write. In the words of a tv-executive, as tapped out on a Blackberry, “And itsz gota b whizbang Pllllllls!” A colleague shared this smart-phone advice with me recently; it had been sent to him in response to a science story he was pitching. It reminded me that science stories on TV were perhaps in a worse spot of bother than science stories in print. But still, most print editors that I know want an ounce of whizbang too. An exploding bullet that makes a reader freeze, coffee cup posed in mid-sip, until they read the next line.
So… what is a science writer to do when trying to bridge communications out of the detailed, cultured world of science and into mainstream news consumers that demand whizbang action? (Or, at least the editors — the gatekeepers of stories — demand that itsz gota b whizbang Plllllls.)
I wish I had answers. I don’t. There is a constant debate among science writers as to whether our main thrust should be educational and informational or entertainment. Or infotainment. Clearly, whizbang writing is entertainment. I think my writing tends to err toward the educational and informative. I don’t try to go after the stories that focus on the “ugliest animal ever” or promise that “this will change your sex life forever!” I go after the stories that I think are just plain neat. (And sometimes I take assignments, well a lot of times actually, from editors because hey, I gotta eat.) I’m a curious person, and I like learning about ecology and natural history — whether or not itsz whizbang awesome every second.
So, do science writers need to package their stories into super attractive bright little packages of irresistible brain candy? Something audiences can’t resist because it promises whizbang sensation (that will change your sex life forever)? Or do we just need to cut little windows of insight into the world of science and disseminate the information in terms that most people can understand without having to run to their dictionaries? I wish I knew. For one thing, it depends upon the publication and its audience. For another, I think it depends upon the source and what sort of relationship the writer wishes to maintain with them. Most scientists don’t want to be made to look silly, especially if it’s by dumbing down their work (think: whizbang). If the writer wants to maintain a working relationship with that source, and that source’s network of colleagues, then it’s in our best interest to try to work with them to communicate their work in a way that’s accurate.
But even that is not the heart of the problem. The crux of it is that we need smarter readers. I hate to sound like an intellectual snob — because I know there are FAR smarter people than me out there — but frankly, we need a smarter society. We need to reinvent primary education and foster a culture among our kids that encourages learning and makes being smart the phattest whizbang thing around skoo from kindergarten to 12th grade. Because in the end, this debate about whether science stories should be whizbang or not is really a debate about what the audience understands and how they want their information delivered to them. And if they haven’t been taught to value science= –, that it really is whizbang beautiful just by itself — then it won’t matter how many whizbang science stories writers weave or videographers shoot, because no one will care.
What do you think? Comments are welcome.
8 thoughts on “And itsz gota b whizbang Pllllllls”
Hilary Maybaum
As I budding scientist, I had the whizbang trained out of me when my advisors insisted that phrases like the “elusive humpback whale” were never to be used in scientific papers. The fact is, humpbacks ARE elusive, but my mentors believed that people who use layperson-friendly words just won’t be taken seriously in the scientific strata. I’m sure they were right, but I didn’t stick around in the ivory tower long enough to find out.
The truth is, I enjoy making science accessible, and if using words that are factually correct yet non-jargony accomplish that, then more power to ’em. These days, I write K-12 textbooks, which still trend toward the staid, non-whizbang language of dry science, though some publishers are savvy enough to allow a more engaging, conversational approach.
Every now and then, I do read a whizbang article in places like Wired and Seed that makes me long to break out of the academic science writing mold. But I don’t believe a piece HAS to be whizbang to capture the hearts and minds of the general public.
I enjoy reading your musings here and look forward to more of your great work.
DeLene
Hi Hillary, thanks for your comments from the educational/text book perspective. What you wrote about your science mentors believing that the use of layperson-friendly words would lessen the weight of their work is a big issue. I think that is okay when scientists are talking to other scientists, but they have to breakdown that barrier when talking to non-scientists. But sounds like you know that. ;-) I agree with your third graph here, it does not HAVE to be whizbang. It works in some cases better than others.
Pascale
I just read Randy Olson’s book on communicating science to nonscientists (Don’t Be Such a Scientist), and his film school perspective would be similar to the smartphone advice above. There is no reason science can’t be told in accessible language, and you gotta have that whizbang bit up front so people care.
I am editing a magazine (not a journal) for the American Society of Nephrology, and our biggest problem thus far is getting our contributors to write in non-science-y language. That’s part of the reason I blog; to practice writing in an active voice with adjectives, adverbs, and other wonderful meaningful language.
DeLene
Hi Pascale, thanks for your thoughts. I agree there has to some juice up front to get people interested, and usually we put that in the lede. Unfortunately, in the specific case I used for an anecdote, the TV person was looking for something even more dramatic and completely sensational. It spoke to me of this line we have to straddle between making the lede exciting versus selling the soul of a science piece to entertain readers.
Pingback: Rebooting science journalisTS « Science in the Triangle
Pingback: Making it real: People and Books and Web and Science at ScienceOnline2010 « Science in the Triangle
Pingback: Evolutionary Medicine: Does reindeer have a circadian stop-watch instead of a clock? [A Blog Around The Clock] « Random Information
Pingback: Evolutionary Medicine: Does reindeer have a circadian stop-watch instead of a clock?