How do we tell science stories in this moment?

Is it possible for journalists to both fully cover deep cuts to science funding and protect the scientists who speak out?

It’s been a weird *checks calendar* 50 days to write about science. Since the inauguration, I’ve been thinking a lot about how we should be covering science as journalists in this moment, with the enterprise of scientific research (funding and staffing) under threat like never before. Scientists, too, are wrestling with what to do—many see science as politically neutral (it is not, of course) and separate from activism. They’re struggling with the extent to which they should publicly advocate for themselves, directly or through the media.

I wrote a bit a couple of weeks back about how journalists are trained to see their work similarly. I’m not sure the world of scientific and journalistic “neutrality” exists anymore. I don’t have the answers. But this week, a few thoughts.

A cute little collage of recent headlines

I’m not a breaking news reporter. I mostly write feature stories that take weeks or months to report and produce narrative podcasts that are in the works for even longer before they’re published. But I think (I hope) I’ve still found a way to contribute to coverage in a small but meaningful way.

Given the onslaught of news—rumored funding cuts and actual cuts, grant freezes and comms blackouts, NSF workers fired then rehired—it’s impossible to cover everything (although some outlets, like Wired, have pretty much been doing just that). And it’s impossible for the public to keep up with everything—even the half who are interested in doing so. So what do we (we, in this case, being non-breaking news reporters and freelancers) do?

I talked to an editor recently at Scientific American—an outlet that, along with its parent company Springer Nature, has quite a big stake in the continuation of science here in the U.S. But they just don’t have the capacity to keep up with every development, so they’re focusing on telling more evergreen stories behind the news. What do we lose when NOAA’s funding gets cut? What are our tax dollars going to there? Those are the kinds of stories they’re telling.

That was reassuring for me as a freelancer. We don’t all have to focus on every new development flooding the zone. I’m trying the SciAm method with the stories I’m pitching now. I’m working on one for National Geographic, for example, about the importance of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service, the training program for new “disease detectives.” This is another case where cuts were proposed but rolled back for now. So, it’s a story that highlights why it’s so important for the government to fund basic science on pathogens and train smart people to think in ways that help us track the origins of diseases down.

There’s another advantage to these “behind the story” stories—getting scientists to talk. Freelance journalist Freda Kreier wrote a post on LinkedIn recently about her frustrations with getting scientists to go on the record in this political climate:

Many of my science sources in the US have grown reluctant to talk--passing me off to media relations, not answering my emails, or making demands about seeing stories before they're published. My guess is that you're afraid. Afraid of becoming a target in this political climate. Afraid for your research funding, your career, and even your safety.

Fear is a natural response to *waves hands* what's happening. Many US scientists have expressed their concerns in the face of layoffs, threats to funding, and directives against DEI. Journalism will not solve these problems. But it is essential component for addressing the current climate. Remember that your voice matters. We want to hear from you. Journalists can protect your identity if that's something you need. Don't silence yourself preemptively.

I’ve run into similar issues recently. For a very benign story on the science of geologic carbon sequestration, Lawrence Livermore National Lab cancelled an interview on me (eventually rescheduling it a week later) for a mandatory government comms blackout.

Another source I checked in on, a person who conducts research in Antarctica, told me they were worried about a New York Times story about cuts to NSF funding in Antarctica—they work on a critical long-term project funded by a multimillion dollar grant that they fear becoming a target. Scientists are trying to walk the line between getting the word out about the importance of their work to the public and drawing too much attention from the wrong people. Journalists can offer anonymity, but that protection only goes so far. Is it better to roll the dice and try to fly under the radar as long as you can, or to go public? I don’t know. But the stories are getting out, one way or another.

All we can do, I guess, is show scientists we’re here to listen and report their stories with compassion and fairness. And at least recently, I’ve had a lot of luck getting people to talk about the importance of their work for those “story behind the story” explanatory pieces—I think it’s a bit easier of a sell than getting asked what you think of the administration and its mission to slash budgets.

Reading list

What I’ve been reading recently (and you might be interested in too):

Airplanes of the Future Could Be Fitted With Feather-Like Flaps (Saugat Bolakhe, Wired)

• This is a cool piece about aircraft designers learning from the original fliers, birds. Some neat tech and science coverage by a good reporter!

The Fault of Time (Erica Berry, Emergence Magazine)

• I’ve really been enjoying Emergence recently. They publish a lot of nice essays and really cool interactive features (with audio, video, etc.). Anyway, this is a great essay by a great journalist an author about the impermanence of landscape.

Can the Media’s Right to Pursue the Powerful Survive Trump’s Second Term? (David Enrich, New York Times Magazine)

• This is a long (and not fun) but important piece. In 1964, New York Times v. Sullivan gave the press its protection from punishing libel lawsuits—paving the way for groundbreaking investigations like Watergate. There’s a right-wing movement gaining steam that hopes to get the Supreme Court to overturn the precedent, making it much easier for the rich and powerful to silence news outlets.

Nature, News, and Narratives (Jessica Chomik-Morales, Knight Science Journalism)

• I want to start sharing more resources here too. This is a helpful Q&A with journalist Bryce Hoye on how to tell stories where science and marginalized communities intersect.

And one last thing—I want to recommend the LinkedIn for Journalists program. Some of LinkedIn’s best features (messaging anyone directly, seeing who’s viewed your profile, access to certain job postings) are locked behind a subscription paywall. Did you know journalists can apply to get Premium for free? It’s a pretty painless form and they get you up and running fast.