Science and technology journalism provides public meaning to scientific issues that would otherwise never be widely discussed in public. It is a subset of journalism practice that can take on a wide variety of forms but is focused on communicating science to specialist and nonspecialist audiences. While it has historically been linked to the promotion of science and gee-whiz stories that seek to fascinate people, through time its roles have diversified to showcase that one strength of science journalism as a profession is a critical stance on scientific and technology issues. This stance helps science journalism draw both on the power of science to learn about our world and the power of journalism to take a serious and thoughtful view on connections between science and society. Even as legacy mass media in some countries falter, imperiling jobs, many make the argument that a growth in misinformation makes good, independent, and evidence-based science journalism more important than ever. This entry discusses how scientific journalism has been defined, different approaches to science journalism, some common themes in discussions of the field, and challenges facing science journalism.

Definition(s) of science journalism

There is no standard definition of science journalism that is unequivocally accepted by all. Journalists, scientists, scholars, and critics have long debated the essential elements that could make up a robust field of science and technology journalism. Should it focus on the translation of complex scientific findings into jargon-free journalism to inform nonspecialists? Or make its mission the critique of scientific endeavors and new technologies for the public good? Perhaps, the goal is simply to engage audiences in the slow process of scientific discovery? Many additional questions and combinations of answers have been proposed, often with the underlying thread that journalism is one important connection between science and society. For science reporters such as Cornelia Dean, whose 2009 book Am I Making Myself Clear? is an invitation to scientists to talk to the public, science journalism involves four steps:

Paying attention to developments in science and technology;
Talking to the researchers that generate these developments;
Seeking to understand the ideas behind them; and
Communicating (through media production) this understanding to the public.

The importance of Dean’s four steps is clearly situated in arguments that this is how we stay knowledgeable about how science is, and will continue to, change our world. This is seen through issues such as climate change, gene editing, ethical robots, pandemics, black holes, the loss of biodiversity, space exploration, quantum computing, and so many other topics that require incisive social learning and public deliberation. Such scientific topics, however, can represent some of the most difficult forms of discourse to untangle without background knowledge.

The work of science journalists to publicly untangle science is often a highly personal endeavor. Each science journalist has their own preferences in terms of scientific topics, multimedia formats, tactics for explaining complex topics, trusted scientists to interview, and distinguishing styles. This, of course, is combined with sharing various common professional practices, a culture, set of norms, and a political and economic context situated in a desire to link scientific developments to public knowledge. In his 1997 book chapter “Covering Science for Newspapers,” Boyce Rensberger outlines five criteria newspaper science writers use when deciding whether a story is newsworthy:

Fascination value, science journalists speak to human curiosity;
Size of the audience, science journalists want topics that impact many people;
Importance, science journalists want their story to resonate, to mean something;
Reliability, science journalists want science that is good, convincing, peer-reviewed, and notes its limitations (other scientists will back it up); and
Timeliness, science journalists want a new discovery.

Not every science journalist will agree with or prioritize all these criteria, but they suffice to show that science journalism can look a lot like other journalism, which Sharon Dunwoody notes is due to media coverage patterns making use of similar production infrastructure as opposed to content specifics.

Science journalists have long had a strong community with professional associations such as the World Federation of Science Journalists (WFSJ) and its 70+ member associations from across the world, as well as books providing guidance to science journalists. A restrictive view of this work sees the clearest, defining examples of science journalism in the specialist news reporting found in, for example, the science section of the New York Times or in magazines such as the New Scientist. A larger view recognizes that almost any general journalist can find themselves covering a science and technology issue, and importantly, that there is a diverse set of online and social media outlets aimed at conveying information about science to their audiences.

The recognition of a growing array of online information sources about science has led to renewed calls for science journalism to better define itself. A group of 50 science journalists and experts at the 1st Kavli Symposium on the Future of Science Journalism in 2014 noted the need to clarify their connection to direct communications from scientists, scientific institutions, industry, and other sources. These journalists wondered if these direct communications would employ the standards of the field or would serve conflicting interests. On a thorny issue, this group focused on a definition of science journalism, suggesting it involves:

Explore Britannica Premium!

The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.

Finding and interviewing scientific experts;
The use of scientific explanation and argumentation in its published work;
The use of what Dunwoody terms weight-of-evidence reporting, in which scientific evidence is assessed and weighted; and
The desire to connect science to everyday experience and important cultural, economic, political, and social contexts.

These four components clearly seek to situate science journalism as more than just transferring understandable scientific information to nonspecialist audiences. Instead, there is an articulation of a form of journalistic practice with the core values of verification and critique, which ultimately seeks to hold science to public account. The list also implies that one main job of science journalists is finding appropriate sources. This does not exclude that some science journalism will rightly be of the gee whiz variety or will prioritize entertainment value or will see its primary usefulness as linked to science literacy.

History of science journalism

Since mass media channels have existed, stories about new technology and scientific discoveries have been produced. Dorothy Nelkin in The Culture of Science Journalism (1987) recounts how, as early as the 1830s, the London newspaper Athenaeum was publishing on the Geological Society of London, and the New York Tribune sold tens of thousands of copies of John Tyndall’s physics lectures in 1872. It was a time of science hoaxes too, with the press in the 1800s writing about bat-like humans on the moon, and people living without eating (an early indicator of the role of sensationalism in science news).

Scientific American was founded in 1845; Popular Science Monthly in 1872; and the National Geographic Society in 1888. They began to set down how journalism about science could be used to inform people about their world, fascinate them about the future, and be mindful of the values driving progress and the power of technology.

Writers who have sought to describe the history of science journalism note that initial efforts were from scientists who wanted to broadly share their knowledge and discoveries. This showcases how science journalism practice, while situated in many traditional journalistic norms, also has a unique history of its own, impacted by the particularities of science and the evolution of the field of science communication.

There is much to learn from historical books written on these subjects (in particular, historian John Burnham’s formative 1987 book How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States). Dunwoody (2014) describes an example from late 18th-century Britain: Scientists at the time assumed people would substantially gain from the inclusion of scientific information in their lives. Many scientists obliged by actively discussing their work in public forums. In turn, scientific institutions, it was thought, would gain from this publicity through increased appreciation and acceptance of their research activities.

The improvement of science literacy was central to this early mission. In the United States, leading American scientists from 1900 to the 1930s pursued an agenda that science needed to be communicated widely for this very reason. In a 2001 essay in Science Communication, scholar Robert Logan describes some of the philosophies from this time, which included passionate arguments to communicate science so as to:

Cultivate the idea of lifelong learning for citizens;
Help people live healthier and longer lives by promoting scientific awareness;
Encourage support for the scientific method as a strategy for public officials to assess complex public affairs choices;
Help citizens and public officials better understand the connection between investment in science research and the United States economic future;
Improve public investment in science;
Foster more interest in science as a career among youth;
Enhance public goodwill and support for science among taxpayers; and
Nurture a public will to support science as a nonpartisan staple of national investment in the future of the economy and culture.

Many of the top-down approaches to these philosophies were eventually disputed as deficit models of public understanding of science were heavily critiqued, and the importance of bottom-up approaches to inclusion and public engagement were recognized. Science journalism would also have its own reckoning about being a cheerleader for science, as the importance of critical and independent stances on science became more widely recognized in the 1960s.

By the early 20th century, science had rapidly advanced to encompass a complex set of expert knowledge, which became less and less accessible without schooling. With the development of specific training programs in science, a particular vocabulary, and reward systems based in research productivity, the communication of science to nonspecialists became less of a priority. Scientists retreated to their peer groups, instead allowing popular science stories to be created by journalists. American scientists such as Edwin Slosson and Paul Heyl recognized the importance of journalists, and how they could broadly disseminate scientific findings. They even made appeals in the 1920s to news magnates like E.W. Scripps to create a science news beat.

Alongside the early efforts from scientists, there was a burgeoning subset of journalists interested in specializing in the coverage of science and technology. By some accounts, science journalism emerged as a viable profession in North America at the beginning of the 20th century with institutions such as Science Service (1921) and the National Association of Science Writers (1934); the field later expanded and changed in response to postwar science, nuclear issues, the space race, and biotechnology. The numbers of science journalists in many countries would continue to increase during the 20th century, with the amount of journalism on science and technology also growing.

Dunwoody, however, reminds us that, while any journalist can cover science, specialized science journalists have always been a small subset of the journalism profession. In addition, she points to research on Greek newspapers to highlight that the amount of general news coverage of science in Greece did not exceed 2.5% of total news (politics sat at 25% and sports 15%, in comparison). There are, of course, numerous other media outlets for science, and with the advent of online news contemporary science journalism began to diversify its approach.

Approaches

Today, it is well accepted that science and technology journalism produces a framework of expectations that gives public meaning to otherwise isolated scientific issues. Without this journalism, many of these science topics would never be widely discussed in public.

In her 1995 book, Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology, Nelkin argues that science journalism should help people to: (1) stay up-to-date on scientific advancements and new technologies, (2) assess the appropriateness of scientific research, and (3) make choices when faced with competing scientific arguments related to their environment, health, and well-being. These three goals for contemporary science journalism, and criticism over whether they are being met, center on how science journalists can best turn scientific research into accessible stories for nonspecialist audiences.

Four models of science journalism

Recently, scholarship has begun to address these expectations with the use of models to conceptualize and clarify the wider frameworks used to communicate science. For those just learning about science journalism, or for the analysis of thorny questions of its normative purpose and practical effectiveness, this approach is instructive for how it opens up the varying theoretical purposes of science journalism practice.

Various contemporary models of science journalism can broadly be grouped into two main categories: traditional models that view science as the legitimizing form of knowledge and aim at transmitting scientific knowledge to audiences; and more emerging nontraditional models that value knowledge outside of science and aim at presenting science information tied to its ability to engage people and build trust among groups. Such models represent one approach to conceptualizing how journalists might produce, and how audiences might respond to, contemporary science journalism. Importantly, they are only a point of reference; one intended to help us think about science journalism, and simply offer a representation of the complex processes of science journalism. The following is a summary of four models presented in a 2013 article in Journalism Practice by David Secko, Elyse Amend, and Terrine Friday.

Model A: Science literacy (traditional)

Much of science in the news media is event and publication driven, seeking to inform audiences about science. A new scientific paper gets published, and journalists cover it. This approach falls under a science literacy model, which seeks to translate scientific information for people and to provide the information needed to make decisions in their daily lives. Such journalism is often driven by conflict and the wow factor (novelty).

For a journalist, this model involves the use of traditional journalistic norms, such as objectivity, and views audiences as lacking scientific knowledge (deficit model). It uses scientific experts as main sources. Model A is oriented to education, seeking to raise science literacy, or the level of understanding publics have about science, and thereby seek to gain popular support for science. Science in this context is fixed and certain, and it can be used to make decisions and the scientific method justifies any knowledge presented.

Theoretically, this model represents a linear, top-down transmission structure where knowledge from scientists is provided to journalists, who translate it into accessible journalism. Versions of the science literacy model have been extensively critiqued for making people passive participants, avoiding their personal and contextual information needs, supporting uneven power relations between those viewed as having knowledge (scientists) and those that do not (audiences), and dismissal of other forms of (nonscientific) knowledge.

Model B: Contextual (traditional)

Not all science journalism is driven by new research papers in scientific journals like Science and Nature. Some is focused on events, issues, concerns, and cultural realities tied to specific populations.

For a journalist, this contextual approach seeks to inform communities about science as it relates to their context(s). Model B still makes use of experts as its main sources, treating audience members as concerned spectators, and is therefore still a traditional approach to top-down information delivery (holding onto notions of knowledge deficits in audiences, and science as fixed and certain). But journalists working in this style acknowledge that science means different things in different geographic locations and social settings. This is an important acknowledgment, as context can shape how individuals receive, process, and respond to scientific information. This journalism pays close attention to the construction of messages as linked to the needs and situations of their audiences.

Theoretically, Model B wants a more cooperative relationship between science and the public, identifying audiences as able to gain knowledge quickly about relevant topics. However, while the contextual model seeks to increase knowledge and change attitudes, it has been criticized as just another version of the deficit model that places scientific knowledge above other forms of knowing (i.e., science and society remain separated as different worlds), where only a mastery of science journalism can bring peace to disputes. Audiences do not have any direct participation within this form of science journalism.

Model C: The lay-expertise model (nontraditional)

The main difference in the lay-expertise model is that it situates local knowledge as equal to scientific knowledge. The goal is to disrupt the idea that science-society relationships are the result of differing worlds, and that it is possible to incorporate the knowledge and interests of specific populations—their lay-expertise—in science journalism.

For a journalist, this model values knowledge in its own right, with science seen as limited and uncertain, requiring expertise from sources outside of science to examine issues and their social connections. This means working to empower local communities in the scientific process, diversifying sources to those outside science, asking nonspecialists to supply questions they want answered, and viewing stories as not solely scientific. Accuracy does not slip away, but these community dilemmas drive this journalism, as the community provides solutions to uncertain science, and journalists adopt a style that reflects active engagement. Scientists and experts only act as secondary sources, with their roles limited to providing background and context.

Theoretically, this model seeks to foster confidence that individuals have valuable knowledge to share on a scientific topic. However, there are challenges in this model. Critics suggest balancing expert, lay-expert, and nonexpert knowledge is impossible. They note that the inequality of information from different groups is a constant obstacle.

Model D: The public participation model (nontraditional)

In the age of social media and interactive journalism, it should not be a surprise that science journalists are seeking new ways to engage with people. Science is a slow process. The processes that drive scientific discovery, the consequences of choices, and the personalities involved, all point to the importance of science as a social activity. The public participation model attempts to make the scientific process more interactive and encourages public debate on scientific issues.

For a journalist, this model is less focused on science literacy, or any knowledge gaps that may exist, and instead wants stakeholder groups to be more involved in a scientific issue (especially policy issues) to build trust among these groups. Scientists here are not presented as someone special and science stories focus on the processes behind the science. The desire is to promote media channels for more active, nonlinear discussion, where it is made clear science can lead to both certainty and uncertainty but is definitely embedded in wider social issues.

Theoretically, this model is nontraditional as it wants to break from a linear transmission structure present in legacy journalism. The public participation model focuses on a holistic mapping of a multitude of stakeholder viewpoints, and aims to engage audiences in pluralistic debate. The public participation model has been subject to criticisms as well, such as addressing politics and policy issues over public understanding of science, and emphasizing the process of science while discounting the actual content. This approach is also only able to address smaller, particular audiences at a time.

Common discussions in science journalism

A quick search will find hundreds of books, journal articles, pieces of journalism, commentaries, videos, podcasts, and social media posts on science journalism written during the 2010s alone. A quick snapshot of some of these themes is warranted to help understand today’s science journalist and their challenges.

Science or journalism first?

Science journalists are often asked where their allegiances lie. Many make it clear that they are journalists first, who happen to cover science, though in recent years an increasing number of science journalists have come to the profession with a scientific degree and/or laboratory bench training, in addition to journalism training or learning on the job. Viewed as specialist reporters they hold different values than their generalist peers, but often note their integrity and the need for the mental freedom that independence provides. Science journalists see themselves as solely responsible for the content and frame of their work, regardless of what they place first.

Scientist journalist interactions

Reported research demonstrates that there is an interconnectedness between journalists and scientists: journalists need scientists for information for their stories, and scientists need journalists to popularize their research. With journalists working under strict time pressure, accessibility is one of the main factors that draw these individuals together. Simply put, those scientists who are easily reachable or call journalists back are more likely to be used in stories. However, there appears to be a growing trend of scientists increasingly being strategically oriented to the media, where use of online media may reinforce this reciprocal relationship.

Are science journalists OK?

Similar to all journalism, science journalism continues to be in flux. For example, science sections at newspapers throughout North America and Europe have seen significant cuts, with fewer and fewer science journalists now holding full-time legacy media jobs. Research on the effect is scant, but the little that exists points to many science journalists now being on their own, working as freelancers and entrepreneurs. A 2013 study suggested that job satisfaction remained high. Of the 592 respondents giving information on employment, 51% were in full-time staff positions (more than half for 10 years or less).

The digital age

As the Internet continues to gain importance as the main source of scientific information, and search patterns change, questions have naturally arisen about how scientists and audiences now compete with science journalists for the production of scientific narratives. In a special 2011 issue of the journal Journalism, scholar Stuart Allan discusses this new digital era, where direct and open engagement is possible, but is accompanied by the emergence of a 24/7 news cycle and an endless variety of rapidly produced science media content. Speed and brevity hold sway. Science journalists are expected to be multiskilled across numerous media platforms, while being able to separate facts from hype and misinformation.

Criticism of science journalism

During a time of increasing demand for online science content, science journalists continue to be criticized. Much of the research literature points to inaccuracy, sensationalism, a lack of methodological details, uncritical reporting, a focus on scientific progress that makes use of a narrow range of expertise, and inclusion in a cycle of hype. Some work suggests science journalists are ultimately unsure how their audiences make use of journalism to understand science. Worries about homogenous coverage also continue, being attributed to recurring sourcing practices (e.g., journalists consistently using the same sources), unlimited press releases, and time constraints that undermine in-depth coverage. Yet some scholars continue to show optimism over the potential to meet these challenges through improved understanding and innovation.

Challenges on the horizon

Science journalists continue to produce excellent, inspiring work. They are well recognized for their enthusiasm and commitment to the societal value of science journalism. However, it is a time of peril and excitement, with questions over who should be considered a science journalist. Media organization affiliations are giving sway to hybrid careers where people work as scientists and freelance journalists, somewhat evoking the historical times described earlier.

Some see science journalism entering a new golden age. For instance, in an essay in Frontiers in Communication (2018), science journalism educators Thomas Hayden and Erika Check Hayden write, “there has never been more, better science and environmental journalism produced than there is today,” while acknowledging that the careers of individual science and environmental journalists have never been more precarious. Regardless, Hayden and Hayden see science journalists banding together to assert the value of rigorous, factual, independent coverage and scrutiny. Others raise more alarm about the cutbacks to news organizations in recent years and their effect on science journalism. Dunwoody observes in his chapter in Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (2014) that “science journalism is an increasingly imperiled occupation that, perversely, is needed now more than ever.”

The original version of this article was published by SAGE Publications in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Journalism.

David M. Secko

science and technology journalism