"Science for Dummies": Science writers share tips on the craft

By Scott Gates

When it comes to helping the public understand science, sometimes less is more, according to a panel of science writers. The three writers discussed how to communicate science effectively to general audiences during an April 11 session at the 58th Conference on World Affairs in Boulder.

Joe Romig, who teaches astronomy at the University of Colorado where the conference was held, served as moderator for the session titled "Science for Dummies." He stressed that what most readers want is not a highly-technical explanation when it comes to science.

Romig quoted his wife, who may have summed it up best in complaining to him: "I don't want to know how the clock works – I just want to know the time."

Each panelist spoke briefly about his or her experiences in conveying science to the general public before opening the session up to questions and discussion from the audience.

Sidney Perkowitz, who left a research career at Emory University to pursue writing, said he writes for science groupies, or those who like the ideas behind science but don't necessarily want to get bogged down in details. The key to capturing such an audience's attention, said Perkowitz, lies in personalizing the topic while keeping jargon and details to a minimum.

"A significant key to science writing is deciding how much to say, but more importantly how much to leave out," Perkowitz said. "I'm willing to leave out a lot of the detail so the main point makes sense."

Susan Zolla-Pazner followed Perkowitz with a quick breakdown of science basics often misunderstood by the public. The New York-based immunologist often works with students, and applied a classroom technique in asking the crowd to repeat in unison one tricky word: nuclear.

The often-mispronounced word "drives me crazy," said Zolla-Pazner, and is a good example of an otherwise simple term being misinterpreted.

She defined three other basic terms that may not always be clear to those outside the field: hypothesis, scientific theory and scientific law. The basic concept behind a hypothesis – a testable idea – is even misunderstood by some of the professionals who use it every day, she said.

"If it's just an idea and you can't test it, it has no business being in the world of science," said Zolla-Pazner, stressing that before any hypothesis is tested it must be assumed to be untrue. "It's a very different way of thinking, and I have to tell you most scientists forget about that."

The third panelist, Michael Chorost, has written for Wired, The Week and Sky, and recently released a memoir focused on experiences with his hearing, lost and regained with a cochlear implant. Chorost had hearing in only one ear since childhood, and on a business trip lost all hearing in the good ear.

"On the plane ride back home I thought: you know, I might be able to get a book out of this," Chorost said. "I was crushed and thrilled at the same time."

He has gained experience since writing his memoir as a science writer, and stressed the importance of analogy in explaining complex ideas. And following Perkowitz's train of thought, Chorost agreed that on occasion some detail must be sacrificed.

"The best science writers, I think, are the ones that can make mystery enjoyable even if it's not fully explainable," said Chorost.

During the question period, Amy Gahran, a Boulder freelance writer, asked how the public might get more involved in the scientific dialogue.

The panel members agreed that there is already a good deal of interaction between scientists and those outside the field, given that many scientists teach. Chorost pointed out that science writers themselves offer a good deal of feedback, and serve as a valuable bridge between the public and the scientific community.

Perkowitz supported his point, adding that even great thinkers like Einstein can't always write for the public mind. "There's a real difference between a world class scientist and a world class science writer," he said.