Science writing, an unfamiliar field for some journalists, is gaining space and importance in many newspapers today, said Michael Specter, a science and technology staff writer at The New Yorker, to about 30 people in Fisk Hall Monday at noon.
“[Science writing] is opening a new horizon for journalism,” he said. “It’s astonishing how much of a newspaper today is based on what you need to know about science.”
In his speech “Reporting on Science and Society,” Specter described his science journalism path, from The Washington Post and The New York Times to his current position at The New Yorker. Supplemented by a question and answer session, the event was part of the Literature of Fact Lecture Series sponsored by the Medill School of Journalism and the Center for Writing Arts.
As the national science reporter for the Post, Specter was able to cover many stories based on AIDS, a subject he credits with legitimizing science writing.
“Science journalism is a tremendous opportunity, but we have a larger responsibility than some other fields,” Specter said. “There needs to be more checking up on what we do.”
With new strides being made in science and technology, Specter said journalists should be wary of jumping to conclusions, referring specifically to the tendency for people to assume new drugs and research will magically cure everything.
“There’s a lot of hype in journalism, scientists do it too,” he said. “Journalists probably need to ratchet back the hype about that.”
Specter said that when he worked at the Post, most of his colleagues wanted stories about politics. His editor assumed he would move onto politics pieces as well, but Specter said he wasn’t interested.
“[Politics] just bored the hell out of me,” he said. “It wasn’t for me.”
Specter emphasized the idea that more checks are needed in the field of science journalism.
“We need to apply our critical faculties to everyone, not just politicians,” he said. “In the past, certain questions were never asked.”
He also argued that editors shouldn’t allow science writers free reign just because they may be more knowledgeable on the subject.
“You just can’t assume everybody is right,” Specter said. “Brilliant guys are wrong all the time.”
Specter’s career path intrigued many students, including Karen Werling, a Weinberg freshman who attended the event.
“I agree that the scientific side of things is becoming increasingly important,” she said in an e-mail. “It needs to be shown.”
Specter attributed his enthusiasm for the field as the reason why he is still in it after more than 20 years.
“There are so many different aspects to [science writing], personally I think it’s fun,” he said. “Science is an important part of our lives, but there’s still a mystery about it.”