The Narrative Journal

The Curious Cynic

By Madeline Bodin

Cornelia Dean, currently on leave as editor of The New York Times’ science section, said she was concerned that her presentation, “Political Science: Science narratives for an election year” was too bleak.

She gave example after example of the pitfalls that await even the elite of science journalists. That, it’s true, may not inspire anyone to run out and beg for a science beat. But as someone who has covered science, I can tell you her examples rang true. I’ll use many of the tips she gave in my next article.

But for me, the overarching “tip” was this: In speaking about science and science journalism, Dean shows a remarkable mixture of cynicism and wonder.

She recalled a colleague who called some breakthroughs in microbiology “new hope for the dead.”

Dean once pitched a story on a fountain of antimatter in space for the front page of The New York Times with the argument that it was just really cool. Sometimes, she said, in science journalism, the answer to the question, “What is the implication of this?” is just that. (“Because it is really cool.”)

That balance of cynicism and wonder in myself is something I’ll be thinking about the next time I sit down to write a science story.

Madeline Bodin is a freelance science writer.

Writing About Science: No Easy Answers

By Matt Thompson

This could all be very controversial.

Cornelia Dean, science writer extraordinaire, former science editor of The New York Times, takes issue with the notion that newspapers are supposed to educate the public. Not so, says Dean. Our job is to give the news, to tell the truth about what's happening in the world.

A quibbling distinction?

Consider the prostate cancer screening test, widely recommended for men over 50. Although, as the adage goes, "early detection saves lives," the mortality rate for prostate cancer has not dropped since the screening test became widespread. And the test itself carries the risk of making men incontinent or impotent.

Basically, it's not at all certain whether the screening test saves lives or damages them in the big picture. The science journalist's job, Dean said, is to report this uncertainty, not to hold back from fear of discouraging people or confusing them about testing. Our impulse to be didactic shouldn't distract from our responsibility to tell the truth.

"If the issue is confusing," Dean said, "then confusion is an appropriate response."