Writing for science

Writing for science is no simple task. It requires a proficiency at writing to not only write well but also to know what bad writing is so that one can stay away from it. That’s only obvious considering a majority of the population isn’t scientifically aware, per se, and therefore, the product of the process should be both informative as well as instructive. The science writer’s task doesn’t stop at appraising the reader – while the news writer’s does – but includes the responsibility to make the reader understand what one’s writing about at all.

The audience for science writing is limited in the sense that its expansion is difficult and often expensive. On the one hand, there is the science writer herself: she must be versed enough with the subject to know what she’s talking about and its impact on the people (if any – and thus the sensitivities involved). On the other, there’s the reader, who must know of the event/phenomenon being written about, any significance associated with it that is being expounded on, and what stands to be taken away from the literary product.

In order to expand this entire sub-system of journalism and ensure that important scientific concepts and events penetrate the masses, there must be a simultaneous increase in commitment to the task on the science writer’s hand and another similar commitment on the reader’s hand.

As far as the writer is concerned, there are two important problems she faces.

Language

The language used in scientific writing can be of two kinds: technical and instructive. As far as technical writing is concerned, it can be repeatedly broken down to simpler and simpler points, rendering it fully instructive.As for the purely instructive parts – the parts in which the writer is educating the reader about an idea – the writer does not have to concern herself with conceptual barriers but only barriers pertaining to memory and cognition. Each sentence must not be more than 12 words long, each word must not have more than 3 syllables, and the flow of logic should be step-wise, linear and not convoluted.

Logic

Basically, the writer has the advantage of knowing what the big picture is. While trying to understand a smaller aspect of it, she has the benefit of drawing upon her knowledge in similar areas to construct a logical framework that she thinks explains the phenomenon. The reader may or may not know these other things, and since every writer writes to address the weakest link, she must start from scratch.For example, while attempting to explain topology, she cannot take the example of sets and set theory but instead must take the geometry path – more arduous but less complex.

*

A third and less-evident problem is that of choosing what to write about. Considering that the audience for science writing is, as such, small, and keeping in mind how easy it is for those numbers to dwindle, the reader must bear in mind that writing about concepts that are not directly impactful can be attractive only to those who are curious, don’t mind knowing or pursue a hobby in that direction. The writer may be curious but writing for the weakest link entails writing for a reader who is not curious.

This is not an interpretation that goes against any kind of scientific literature; there are different forums for different kinds of writing. When writing for newspapers and/or magazines, the value of the space which is being filled (by the piece) must be borne in mind: the priority is to familiarize the readers with a common scientific concept rather than going on about obscure phenomena. Once a sufficient guarantee is purchased toward retaining a section of the audience, other things can follow.

The reader making an effort in this direction – to somehow mobilize his resources toward acquiring scientific knowledge – only makes the writer’s tasks simpler. Even though it is not for the writer to ask of such things at any stage, a general awareness regarding science is mandated by other things, such as one’s livelihood and one’s responsibility toward the environment.

Thus, looking at this writer-reader interface from the reader’s side, the writer can be understood as fulfilling certain needs of the reader, needs that are defined by the latter’s lifestyle and interests, and in some cases, traditions as well as nationality.

"It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform"

- 51(A), Indian Constitution

The difference between science news and other kinds of news is that the pervasion and penetration of science is 100 per cent as opposed to other events, whose impacts are determined by proximity, beliefs, professional interests and other such things. Even then, the situation is that the necessity for that kind of knowledge is mitigated by social and economic circumstances. For instance, a farmer who uses pesticides can be happy knowing which chemicals go well with the soil content, his crop and the kind of pests in his farm. He may not want to know the ingredients of the pesticides or the consequences in case of an overuse at all.

So, the responsibility to enhance the awareness of such a population can be bifurcated: as one-half is attended to by the media and the quality and quantity of stories they choose to address, the other half should be exposed to the technical aspect of their daily lives through programmes, workshops and field-trips (at the school level) as may be suitable. In other words, without knowing of the pertinence of a science column in newspapers, the value of that knowledge is next to nothing even as its necessity grows.