Last Friday, Science Magazine published my latest piece of reporting. It’s a pretty straightforward 1,100-word news story about the launch of a new European research project starting up this year with a series of six research cruises to understand the environmental impacts of deep-sea mining. It’s not a big feature story or anything. So I’m almost a little embarrassed to say it’s been in the works since May of 2024…
A new series of research cruises will study rare abyssal species in areas slated for mining
Scientists are using remotely operated vehicles to study polymetallic nodules on the sea floor and the animals that rely on them, such as this deep-sea coral. (ROV Team Kiel 6000/GEOMAR MiningImpact project)
At COP28 in Dubai the previous November (we’re talking 2023 now), I’d attended a bunch of sessions about deep-sea ecosystems—and was surprised to learn that coral reefs exist in the abyssal deep. Deep-sea creatures have been somewhat insulated from warming waters and human impacts so far. But with deep-sea mining on the horizon (and fisheries and oil exploration moving into deeper waters), these beautiful coral reefs in the dark seemed like charismatic examples of biodiversity at risk. Through an organization called CORDAP, I got in touch with a bunch of cold-water coral scientists, among them Rhian Waller, who was planning to study corals in a Chilean fjord in July of 2024.
I pitched Science a relatively unfocused feature story about corals and the intersection of a few overlapping races—to mine the deep sea and map it—science and politics and economics intertwined. Norway in particular was mapping its seabed (ostensibly for science) while planning to be the first country to mine it. Thus began a chain of some 80 emails back and forth with a couple of Science editors interested in the work in Norway and another project I’d gotten interested in, a European effort called MiningImpact (the focus of the above story published last week). This line of inquiry eventually led to a feature in Hakai Magazinethat I traveled to Chile to report (Rhian Waller’s work) with Pulitzer Center funding and a piece for Smithsonian Magazineabout the complicated history and geopolitics of deep-sea research in Norway. But not, immediately, a Science piece.
The Science Reporter's Cut is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
With a couple of editors there, I discussed various news pegs related to new research papers and decisions in the case of Norway’s deep-sea mining work (which was ultimately put on hold) over months. I gave up (temporarily) late in 2024, then reached out to my editor one more time in the summer of 2025—one of the researchers for MiningImpact had told me he was planning a new, third phase of the project that would cap off the work and inform the International Seabed Authority’s regulations for mining. Finally, I hoped, was enough of a news peg for Science to greenlight a deep-sea mining story (they don’t publish a ton of those). And here we are.
It’s really nice to finally get that piece out in the world, if a little underwhelming—there are so many pages of notes, emails, academic papers read, interviews done (at least a dozen) that didn’t make it into the final, pretty focused final news story. I think of news as the quickest of quick-turn genres of journalistic writing. In the past, I’ve written news stories for Science (typically new study stories) in a day or two, from pitch to publication. The fact that it’s been (I just checked) 600 days since I first dove into this topic is pretty wild—I certainly wouldn’t want to calculate my hourly rate for this one.
I have to remind myself that’s how this works sometimes, at least for me—an initial pitch that leads deep into a topic, resulting in (at best) a few stories for different outlets over a couple of years.
Reading list
What I’ve been reading and listening to recently (and you might be interested in too):
This is a great op-ed. Science is not a uniform march towards truth—but that doesn’t mean we should give up on it. There’s a middle ground between “naive faith and wholesale pessimism.”
From the NASA communications perspective (and as a space nerd), it’s been a little baffling to see how little coverage NASA’s Artemis II mission has gotten so far. We’re a month away from humanity’s return to the Moon. And people I talk to on the street have no idea—Joel’s had the same experience, and writes about why.
I’m a sucker for a story about scientists in Antarctica, and this is a really unique project. I’ve been enjoying all of Alec Luhn’s stories as a staffer for New Scientist.
Podcasting is in a bad place as a medium—Serials are few and far between. Celebrity chat shows (and worse) are on the rise. Everyone’s pivoting to video. But there are still some pretty amazing, creative shows out there. I’ve added a ton to my watch list from Benjamin’s collection here.
One more thing…
After more than two years of work on the NASA audio team, we’re finally releasing a limited series all about Artemis II—NASA’s upcoming crewed mission to the Moon—on Curious Universe. The trailer dropped today, and episodes will release weekly this month. Super excited for this to be out in the world—I think it’s some of our best work. Tell your friends!
