Scientists,

Last month, I blogged my interview with New York Times science writer, Dennis Overbye, about the state of science and science journalism.   Almost immediately, I got a note from another major science journalism guru, Michael Lemonick, who had some strong reactions.  I suggested he do an interview with me, and that’s what I have to offer you today—Lemonick’s take on everything from the Carl Sagan phenomenon to how the news lies about science.

Michael Lemonick, senior science writer at Climate Central, former senior science writer at Time Magazine.

You may know Lemonick for the long string of eye-popping cover articles he’s written for Time Magazine, Discover, Scientific American, and other publications.  Or maybe you took one of the classes he’s taught on science journalism at Princeton, Columbia, Johns Hopkins or New York University. Mike has also authored four books, and holds a masters of science in journalism from Columbia University.  He is presently the senior science writer at Climate Central.

MK:  Tell me something about what you’re working on these days!

ML:  OK. I’m working on a number of different things.  I left Time in 2007 and I am now a full time staff writer for a non-profit journalism organization called Climate Central.  We do stories and multimedia presentation about climate change—for our website and for other organizations.  I’m also continuing to work as a freelance science writer for Time, Discover and Scientific American and other places.  And finally, I’m working on a book on exoplanets.  It’s my second book on exoplanets.  I did one in 1997, but I figured there’s probably a bit that’s happened since then.

MK:  How do you know Dennis Overbye?  You belong to the same club of science journalists, so to speak.

ML:  Yes. Dennis and I have been running into each other at conference for many years.  We’ve never worked together.  We’ve worked for the same magazines at different times.  We are certainly familiar with each other’s work.

MK:  How would you describe the state of science journalism?

ML:  The situation for science journalists at traditional science organizations is not so good.  At Time the reason I left was that the editor who took over was not interested in basic science and made that clear.  They were trying to get rid of more senior writers and were offering buyouts.  Right and left journalists are leaving.  David Chandler who was covering physics and astronomy at the Boston Globe took a buyout.   Andy Refkin took a buyout.   My understanding is that everyone at the New York Times was forced to take a pay cut in order to stay.

But the number of opportunities for journalists to write about science has greatly expanded.  I almost never now write for the print magazine.  I write almost exclusively for Time.com.  But the problem is these jobs don’t pay as much.  I get less than half as much per word writing for the website. But it’s still a great platform and it’s not my main living and I will get published.  Whereas in a magazine you have to fight desperately for every inch, space is shrinking so badly.

MK:  How should scientists respond to these changes in science journalism?

Biologist and blogger PZ Myers

ML:  It depends on what they want to achieve.   I’m aware of your work, Marc, and it makes a lot of sense to me—that scientists need to be more active about making people aware about their work. And certainly that’s a good thing.  Certainly there are scientists who have gone out and become bloggers and their public profile is relatively high compared to their positions at universities.  I think of PZ Myers at Minnesota.  Science journalists read blogs and have started quoting people who do them.

MK:  In other words, we can get higher profiles for ourselves by blogging.

ML:  Yes, if you do it effectively—by being provocative and getting a lot of people to link to your blogs.

MK:  How do you know when a story is ripe for a big magazine like Time?

ML:  It’s a difficult question to answer because it’s instinctive.  I hear something and I saw “wow that’s a story,” or I say “naaa”.  I don’t usually stop and analyze it.  At the end of a story, the reader should come away saying, “Wow that’s really interesting! I didn’t know that.”  I assume I have a sense of what an unsophisticated but science-oriented reader would react that way to.  It should be surprising, important—or weird and fun, failing the important.

When I teach journalism I have a top-ten list of things that make a story a story.  If it’s a medical story it has to involve a disease that affects a lot of people and maybe leads to a cure.  People are much more interested in tiny advances in medicine because it lets them imagine where it would lead.  In physical science it’s more difficult.  Something that overturns some long held belief. Something that seems bizarre or addresses some great mystery.  Something that’s superlative—the biggest or the strongest or the loudest or the most distant—with the caveat that you can only do that so many times.

I believe it was Dennis that used the example of black holes at the cores of galaxies.  During the nineties it was “astronomers are 80% sure there’s a black hole at the center of Andromeda Galaxy.”  Then the next year it was “85% sure”. Then it was “90% sure”.  Then it was alright, already!  We get it!  Right now—it’s almost anything from Kepler.  But dark matter—if you don’t know what it is, don’t tell us about it anymore.

I have become somewhat disenchanted with traditional science journalism over the second half of my career.  Because science and news–there are different values involved.  By distorting science into what fits the news you’re actually doing people a disservice. It is actually important that this year we are 90% sure that there’s a black hole in the center of Andromeda.  Basically one might argue that we are lying to people about science.

MK: Wow!  Really?

ML: I’ll give you an example from medical research.  There’s a study that comes out that they learned something about mice and Parkinson’s disease.  It might have implications for humans, but the truth is that it probably won’t.

But I can’t tell my editor the truth, which is that this research probably won’t have any implications for human health.   Her response is going to be to tell me: that’s not interesting; I don’t want that.  In order to make a story palatable to my editor I have to jazz it up and make it something it’s not.  So when you’ve created that expectation that every story is a breakthrough.  If you have a story that’s not a breakthrough, editors say they aren’t interested in that.

The editor of Time back in the early 90’s said in a meeting that there’s a report out saying butter is good for you.  [My editor said:] I used to think butter was bad for you.  I want a story that lays out everything for you and gets to the bottom of this.

So I wrote a story about food and I did just that.  I said that it seems like a full time job to keep track of news on eating healthfully—to monitor what’s good for you and what’s not.  But I said that, basically, if you just do what your mother told you when you were growing up and be moderate about what you eat, you’ll be fine.  It’s not rocket science.

And my editor said: that’s boring.  I don’t want to publish that.  But I was right!  I was telling the truth and that was what was right.

Another thing: if there’s an outbreak of ebola in Sudan, it makes the news.  Last year, a million people died of malaria.  This year, a million people died of malaria.  The number of people who have died over all of history from ebola is maybe 15,000.  Last year, a MILLION people died of malaria.  But it’s not a story.

The news media is a very bad way of conveying how science works and what’s important.  So, yes, I know what makes a good conventional news story, and yes, I write those stories because I want to make a living.  But I’m not convinced that I’m raising the level of understanding in reader.

Dennis made a point that I always make that it’s not our job to educate. What does this mean exactly?  An educator is supposed to try to convey a body of knowledge in sequence so students will remember it and understand it.   That’s not true in journalism.   First of all, we tell stories.

Second of all, educators attempt to measure whether consumers have actually absorbed and retained the information.   They give tests.  Journalists not only never do that, they never even think about it.  We measure whether people like our story, whether they buy our magazine, whether they comment on the story.   If the editor says it’s a good story we assume it’s a good story.

But if you actually go and talk to people about many of the topics I’ve written about—-astronomy, climate change.  I’ve been writing about this stuff for a long time.  If you go to a part where there are a mix of people—educated people—and you get onto one of these topics, they don’t have the first clue about any of these topics that we’ve been writing about FOR THEM for decades.  This kind of disturbs me!  If I’m not giving them information that they retain, then what am I doing?   Is it really a matter of indifference to journalists that people don’t retain what people are telling them?

I might get myself in trouble with all of this.

MK: Is there some better way to measure the impact of the stories you write?  Should journalists give tests?

ML:  There are ways to do it.  It’s just kind of labor intensive.

Also, people talk about how wonderful it was when Carl Sagan was out there.  They say, people were talking about science, back then!  And so on.  I think that’s a crock.

Carl Sagan on the Tonight Show

I guarantee you: the people who were alive at the time, if you ask them about Carl Sagan, they will remember only four things.  He had a show named Cosmos.  He went on the Tonight show a lot.  He had a geeky voice.  And he went around saying “billions and billions”.  If those are the only things people learned from Carl Sagan, that’s really frightening.

We have these myths about science communication.  Did you ever read Brief History of Time?

MK:  That’s the book that everybody owns but nobody’s read!

ML:  That’s exactly my point.   It sold five million copies but people just leave it on their coffee tables.  I don’t want to knock people’s writing about science, but if I think I’m raising the level of science literacy in America by doing it, I think I’m kidding myself badly.

MK:  So what should we do about it?

ML:  One thing that we can do about it is to try to push away from the hard news model of science.  Features like what the New York Times has—showing a scientist at work—I think that’s a good thing.  Here’s somebody sitting at a telescope.  Here’s how that person is feeling.  Those are admirable stories.

Another thing we can do is talk about results that aren’t astonishing.  I got away with a story [like that] at Time—I said we should do a story about the dark ages of the universe.  Then I went and started looking into it, and realized that really nothing much is happening in that field; I had sold the story before I knew what I was doing. So I started casting around for an angle.

It turned out Richard Ellis was on his way to Keck to do observations of incredibly distant Galaxies.  So I got on a flight and I came along on this observing run.

And it turned out they couldn’t get the telescope to work. So they called the night assistant and the chief engineer.  And the object was setting and everyone was getting worried.  Finally, they figured out that the graduate student who was along had entered his username into the software incorrectly, and that was what was preventing the telescope from focusing.

I wrote this down and it added a kind of human interest to the story.  They held the story at first, but then at the last minute it ran.  And it became part of a collection of best science and nature writing stories of 2007.

He [Ellis] did this observing run and by the end of the night he thought he might have had something, but he wasn’t sure.  So there was no result.  A news story with no result goes against the whole ethic of journalism at the time!  But I was able to sneak it in because of the drama of it.

MK: In other words you can write about the human element of things.

ML: Yes, and that helps.  It helps break the readers of the assumption that they are going to read something that’s “newsworthy”.

MK:  But does it help break your editors of that assumption?

ML:  Well, maybe no, but it helps.

And another thing I do is I often lead my stories with a lot of background to give people a lot of context before I get to the news. That’s not generally done.  But I feel like it gives readers a more accurate sense of where things fit.

MK:  What would you like to see us scientists do to make your life as a journalist better?

ML:   Mostly we [journalists] hear about new results in science through press releases.  But I would like to have scientists send me an email when they find something that thy think is intriguing.  I do this with Ed Turner whom I see a lot.

If scientists were to simply send out emails to journalists that they know saying, “hey, people are thinking about this topic a lot”, or “this is something exciting that’s going on in the field,” that would help a lot.  I’m interested in seeing how science is actually done, not how it’s packaged.

MK:  What about younger scientists who don’t know any journalists yet?

ML:  I’m not sure.   They can blog.  They can create their own little news outlet.  But not everybody’s inclined to do that.

MK: Do you look at blogs for news?

ML: I don’t regularly.  But I feel like I should.

MK: So really, a major source for you is your email contacts. What’s the best way to get on your email contact list?

ML:  My email is on Facebook.  I don’t hide it!

MK:  What’s the best way to “manipulate” the press?

ML:  Basically, by knowing how the news works.  By knowing how those superlatives work—I could send you my top ten list.  Cause that’s how journalists work too—they have to pitch stories to their editors, and it works the same way.

If it’s in the physical sciences it may be had to argue that the story is going to be of personal importance to people. But then we switch to the awe-and-wonder track.

If you can make it clear that scientists are very excited about something—this is something we do all the time—readers will think “oh, this is exciting even though I don’t get it.”  The phrase “scientists were astonished to learn” has appeared in so many stories that it’s a cliché.  People figure that if even a scientist is astonished then I will be too.

MK:  What do you think is the future of science journalism?

ML:  Anybody who gives you an answer to that question other than that nobody has a clue is blowing smoke.  Because nobody has a clue.

But I believe there is a future for science journalism.   I don’t know if people will be able to make a living at it.  I do know that my recent students who have gone on to be science journalists seem to be thriving and having a terrific time.  So I believe there’s a future.

To many scientists,  Dennis Overbye needs no introduction.  As science writer for the New York Times, he’s been a main bolt at the junction where science meets society. His well-read and well-written articles on physics and astronomy have helped launch many of our favorite projects and some of our careers as well.

New York Times Science Writer Dennis Overbye. Credit: Nancy Wartik

Overbye graduated from M.I.T. with a physics degree, failed to finish a novel and then worked as a writer and editor at Sky and Telescope and Discover magazines.  He has now written two books: Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos: The Scientific Search for the Secret of the Universe and Einstein in Love: A Scientific Romance.

Dennis and I played phone tag for about six weeks.  But finally on Martin Luther King Day we found time to chat about the state of science and science journalism.

MK:  How bad are things for science right now, in the US and elsewhere?

DO: How bad are things for science in the US?  You should ask me this question in the summer after the new budget has come out.  As far as the world is concerned—Europe has risen from the ashes and it’s pretty much equal to us now, and Asia is coming on strong.  Overall I think there’s more research going on, more doctors being trained.  But most of them won’t be in the U.S. anymore.

I guess I think that in this country, Science seems to have survived the Bush years, barely.  I think you probably have to take it field by field.  Some people have done well. Some people haven’t done so well.  Climate science people certainly did not prosper during the last administration.  I don’t know what’s going to happen to the physicists in the next few years.  They are going to have to move to Europe.

Though from where I sit, there seems to be an awful lot of stuff going on.  There’s lots of news.  There are all sorts of results tumbling in from satellites and experiments.   Of course my editors have gotten tired of listening to me promise these things.  I think it’s time to discover Dark Matter already. I think it’s time to discover an Earth-like planet.  I think it’s time to say yes or no to super-symmetry.

MK: How would you describe the state of science journalism?

DO:  Science journalism is in a very interesting, very turbulent state I think.  We still have newspapers.  Some newspapers still have science reporters, like the Times.  I feel like the blogs have risen up to become huge force in the coverage of science.  I think the readership now is very fragmented.  I think a lot of people get their information from blogs, where people can be more casual or more arcane if they want to be.  I think even at my newspaper there’s a difference between people who read the science times and the font page.  There are a lot of these different layers of coverage going on.

The bloggosphere is very fast. The kerfluffle about the Arsenic bacteria is a perfect example.  In the blogs it was just a prarie fire.  It seemed like that whole story just happened on the web not in the print medium.  We eventually caught up, but our press just takes longer.  On the other hand you can’t count on anything being covered on the web. They are all volunteers so they might decide to cover something or they might not.

Science journalism has undergone a revolution as a whole in the last 20 years.  You have to be much more skeptical and look more carefully at claims and budgets and practices.  In some ways it’s less fun.

But certainly if you’re in the biomedical/pharmaceutical end of things, you have to pay a lot of attention to money, who owns the patents and who s paying for a particular discovery.  The business of that part of science has become a story in itself.

I’m kind of a dinosaur because I spend most of my time writing about pure research of no immediate use to anybody.  I don’t have to ask an astrophysicist if he owns a company that’s just patented his recipe for dark matter.

MK: It some ways it sounds like journalists used to work with scientists, but now you have to separate yourselves from them.

DO: When journalists move to writing about science they are so happy to be there, because for the most part people don’t lie to them in science.  They understand that scientists are their friends.

But it’s not really our job to teach anybody science or promote the fortunes of NASA or NSF.  We’re really just there for the reader to try to illuminate another sphere of human activity.  I’m writing about this stuff because I think it’s realy interesting and cool. But there’s a limit to how much I can enthuse about it in print, especially in a place like the Times.  I think there’s a misconception that benefits science journalism that they are there to benefit science.  I think that’ how most of us feel personally, but it’s relay not quite our job.

A couple of years ago I wrote about this lawsuit in Honolulu to prevent the Supercollider from turning on.   The federal judge in Honolulu has nothing to do with what CERN does in Geneva.  It ended up on the front page because it’s a kind of quirky thing—the editors thought it was comical.  It was kind of a grim day otherwise.  They thought they were brightening up the front page.

But scientists reacted as though I’d betrayed them.  Neither CERN nor Fermilab responded to my requests for over a week for some kind of comment on it.   Finally they referred me to the justice department.  I freaked out and figured I guess I better write this thing.

MK:  I guess people are sensitive about their 300 million dollar projects.

DO:  (laughing) You mean three billion dollar projects!   I think the science community in the US has felt that it was under siege during the last decade under the Bush administration as a result of reactions to things like evolution and the big bang theory of the universe.  I think people have been very sensitive.

MK:  Do you think that things are better for science since President Bush left office?

DO: If you’d asked me two years ago I would have said yes.  But the current mood, which has swung towards reducing the deficit instead of reducing unemployment, doesn’t look good for science.

I heard a talk by the undersecretary of science last week saying that we’re looking at twenty percent cuts.   Pick your favorite agency and imagine it getting a twenty percent cut.

Congress reauthorized the America COMPETES act a month ago [December 22, 2010], which authorized increases in research funding for NSF, NIH DOE, not NASA—NASA somehow wasn’t included in the package.   But the new Republicans coming to town have vowed they would cut 100 billion dollars from discretionary spending.  Fermilab already threw in towel and said we are not going to run the Tevatron anymore.

MK: What do you think scientists should do about all these cuts?

DO:  I think they have to make the case that this is an important thing this nation des. It’s one of the collective endeavors for the good that we engage in.  You can quote Robert Wilson, the founder of Fermilab.  He was asked during some congressional testimony if Fermilab had anything to do with defense of the country.  He said no, it was just one of the things that made the country worth defending.  Scientsts should be more forthcoming with what they are doing and they should bring people along with them.

MK: How can scientists directly influence politicians?

DO:  My impression is you can go and talk to your congressman.  You can give talks, you can write articles, you can write books.  You can give intelligent press conferences. You can describe why your work is important without necessarily hyping it as discovering black holes again for the first time—as NASA did every week after the Hubble Space Telescope was launched.

Brian Greene’s op ed essay about Dark Energy is number 2 on the most emailed list [of New York Times articles] today.  People actually are interested in this stuff if the way that it’s presented to them is a way that they can understand but don’t feel talked down to.  It’s easier said than done. Brian is a master at it

MK:  Since you’ve brought up NASA press releases, what are some of your pet pevees about things you see in press releases?

DO:  Press releases tend to generally overstate the importance of things.  They tend to kind of leave out qualifications.  They are too breathless.  Of curse they are competing for my attention. But when they overstate the case I immediately lose interest.

In general I think there’s too many of them.  I don’t think every Nature paper deserves to be the subject of a press conference.  One suspects that most of it is less motivated by desire to inform the public than by a desire to promote the institution.

Today my attention was drawn to some quantum mechanics paper “Extraction of Timelike Entanglement form the Quantum Vacuum”  the idea is that you can have entangled particles going in opposite directions in time as well as in space.  Somehow you could detect this correlation by measuring things at different times.  It sounds bizarre.   I’m probably not going to write about it.  All kinds of weird intriguing little nuggets come though.  If two important things happen on the same day I can’t do them both.

MK: What would you like to see us scientists do to make your life better?

DO: One thing is to stop cowering in fear of your editors and funding agencies.  Just tell me when something happens and I’ll come and write about it.  I’m not fond of covering press conference announcements.  It’s not interesting from a literary point of view.  It’s much more fun to actually see work being done.   Like I’d love to be there when some dark matter experiment decides they’ve really got it.

MK:  So we should skip the press release process and just call you directly?

DO: Yes, but my competitors would be very unhappy about that.

MK:  Have any scientists actually done that?

DO: These days people are just too aware of mistakes.  I think there might be a time when people have done that in the past.   Sometimes people email me and tell me about something they are doing that might not make the news.  I think the more abstruse areas of string theory and cosmology don’t get the press release, press conference treatment.

One pet peeve is press releases about papers that show that string theory is about to be experimentally tested.  When you read the fine print that’s never true. There was a press release that the large hadron collider was going to test string theory.  It was kind of embarassing for them.

Scientists and science journalists just take these shortcuts  And I think they become enshrined as truth in the public mind.

MK:   So you’re telling us: don’t write press releases claiming to discover the same thing over and over.

DO:  It’s not going to get you a headline.  I mean, the clearest example of this is exoplanets.  It used to be a big deal that they found an exoplanet.  But the bar for an exoplanet getting into the news now is really high.  I’m not interested now unless it’s smaller that the one they just announced.

MK:  One thing I’m trying to wrap my head around is this idea of manipulating the press. How does that work?

DO: We’re totally manipulable.  We don’t pay our sources so, as [Blanche] said in A Streetcar Named Desire, we depend on the kindness of strangers.

The easiest way to manipulate the press is to embargo some result and then send a press release about it to a thousand different news organizations.  They will cover it because they are afraid everyone else will cover it.   It’s a kind of artificial competition that’s stirred up.

It does two things.  By embargoing the information it makes it harder to get an informed opinion on the paper.  It put you at the mercy of time.   And you whip up competition between news organizations.    You have to have your story ready to go online the instant the embargo ends.

You will see that every story has a little note after it with the time that the story came out so you can see who was first, who was a few minutes late with it.  For some people this constitutes bragging rights—in terms of business news it’s not so silly.  So there’s a deadline—you’ve got to have something to say.  Your access to informed opinion may be limited.

In the case of the arsenic bacteria I spent several days sending it to a whole bunch of people.  But it’s hard because when the whole community reads the paper….

MK:  What can you do when you’re manipulated this way, to register that you don’t like it?

DO: You mean besides telling you that I don’t like it?  The easiest way to register your disapproval would be to simply write the story on the spot and print it.  Then Science or Nature would cut you off from their press releases, which I think would be wonderful. It would be like a vacation.

I was tempted during the arsenic bacteria thing.   As I was writing the story—there are certain stories that you know the embargo’s going to break, because it’s just too good.  I had written my arsenic story the day before in case the story broke on the web.  I was tempted to say lets just publish the sucker.  And say good bye to Nature for six months.

I think that if you talk to a lot of science journalists you’ll find that they don’t like this embargo game that the journals play.  The astrophysicists are much saner about this—you just put your stuff on the archive.

MK: How do you know when a story is ripe for the New York Times?

DO: It’s a mixture of what I think is interesting, what I think is gong to be significant, what I think people are going to be interested in.  There are tragic decisions that get made.

If you think it’s important to people beyond your area of specialty.  If it’s arcane but it still has an effect on something important.   If it’s something you think you might want to tell your neighbor about.

MK:  You’ve written wonderful books; do you have any advice for me about writing a book for the first time?

DO:  Yes.  It will be over someday!   When I writing my first book I did three complete drafts, and it was like swimming across the ocean each time.   And remember, what you’re writing is for the readers; it’s not for you.