London Blog

How do you get into science journalism?

The fourth of four posts on alternative careers, based on presentations at the Source Event 2008

“It’s networking, really,” was Simon Frantz’s answer to the titular question, during the final seminar at this year’s Source Event.

And it’s true. There are many routes into journalism—through courses, internships, or just being in the right place at the right time. But you won’t get very far in any kind of publishing without building up an extensive network of contacts—within the industry and in the wider community.

Simon works, topically, for Nobelprize.org, creating educational and news pieces about the awards and their winners. He cut his teeth on the Nature journals, writing news for Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, and also served as online editor for The Scientist.

His talk focussed mostly on scientific journalism but he also had a few words for other editorial jobs in science publishing.

Why do it?

It’s a big step to give up the bench in favour of the news desk, but the advantages are many.

• You can remain very close to the science, without having to do it.

• You get access to the world’s best minds.

• It’s an intellectual thrill to source, assemble and edit information.

• You get a regular sense of completion, with quick rewards.

• Flexibility to work from home.

• You’re asked for an opinion on all kinds of things.

• Good travel prospects.

• Good career ladder, and development of transferable skills

• Relative job security.

But, he stressed, you will lose that active role in discovery, which gets so many of us into science in the first place.

Myths

Simon also knocked down a few misconceptions about life in publishing versus the lab.

• You get paid more. Not necessarily—most careers start in the same ballpark as a postdoc. But there’s a good career ladder to work your way up, and a permanent contract is (theoretically) more secure than a grant-based academic position.

• You work fewer hours. This depends on the role, but many publishing jobs require round-the-clock attention and dedication to the cause. Simon is presumably feeling such strains at the moment, in the aftermath of this year’s Nobel announcements.

Skills needed

Simon identified a few key skills that anyone wishing to work in this field needs, many of which are also the hallmarks of a good researcher:

• Pathologically curious

• Voracious reader

• Highly resourceful

• Collect facts and deploy evidence judiciously

• Flexible (the role can include lots of stress)

• Ruthless networker

• Ability to take criticism

Tips on getting in

Science journalism is notoriously competitive, with many more aspirants than positions. Simon offered a few tips on standing out from the crowd.

• Get local experience. Try your hand at student journalism, and write for whomever will have you.

• Get work experience. Apply for internships and fellowships.

• Do a course. Many institutions offer science communication/journalism courses. These are not strictly necessary for getting into the business, but look good on the CV and give you a better idea if the vocation is for you.

• Enter writing competitions. If you already have an award under your belt, it counts for a lot. The Telegraph and New Scientist in the UK run well-regarded science writing competitions.

• Start a blog. It’s good practice for writing, and what better way to demonstrate your communication skills to a potential employer?

• Do your homework. Know everything you can about a company before going to an interview.

• Network, network, network. (There it is again.)

After the talk, Simon lived up to his mantra by accompanying delegates to a local bar for a spot of networking. After all, you can’t spell ‘publishing’ without a ‘pub’.


Previous entries in this series

Working in the beauty industry

Contract Research Organisations

Volunteering as a scientist overseas

Comments

  1. Report this comment

    Eva Amsen said:

    Yay! This is the kind of stuff I Google for once in a while. This is also a good resource.

  2. Report this comment

    Brian Clegg said:

    Can I say as a science writer (as opposed to journalist) I’m rather disappointed that ability to write well and present complex information in a way that’s accessible to the lay person weren’t deemed necessary skills.

    But then, hey, anyone can write, can’t they? 🙂

  3. Report this comment

    Matt Brown said:

    Hey, that’s what editors are for. 😉

    I guess writing well is taken for granted, in the same way you’d expect ‘punching well’ to be a requirement of a good boxer.

  4. Report this comment

    Stephen Curry said:

    I guess writing well is taken for granted, in the same way you’d expect ‘punching well’ to be a requirement of a good boxer.

    And some – Norman Mailer springs to mind – mastered both the writing and the boxing…

  5. Report this comment

    Eva Amsen said:

    Good boxers that may not be good punchers:

  6. Report this comment

    Maxine Clarke said:

    Writing well – you might be quite surprised by the difference between delivered copy by a journalist and the final edited and subedited version.

  7. Report this comment

    Mike Fowler said:

    I wonder how “punching well, whilst avoiding getting punched” would translate into a journalists toolbox? Umm, glass chin…glass of gin!

    Matt, these posts are great! Nice to know there are alternatives out there.

  8. Report this comment

    Marizela Moya said:

    I’m with Mike. Thanks for posting this.

Comments are closed.