On the art of nonfiction, David Shenk.
This article and its 3 challenges to writing nonfiction resonates with me. As a scientist, it also highlights the difference between scientific practice versus science writing of other types (with a surprising insight for science).
The second challenge is the one that both scientists and science writers do a lot of: figuring out how to navigate complex information. It's the core of the job, whether you are doing science or writing about it.
The first challenge is the one that most scientist don't do much of: storytelling science. For the scientists that want to do it, that's great. But it's also really hard. While tremendously valuable to the whole, I'm not sure it turns individuals into better scientists; it's a different (valuable!) thing. Of the 3 challenges, this one differentiates science writers vs scientists, I think. (The analog in science would be the experiments and such).
The third challenge is the one that is less obvious: Stepping back from the trees to view the forest from 10,000 feet to get a fresh perspective. I agree with Shenk that most scientists don't do it. It's one I'd like to see more scientists engage in; I suspect it would lead to better science.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2009/11/on-the-art-of-non-fiction/30107/
@NicoleCRust It's great if people can do research and are great communicators. But it should not be assumed, or required, to be the case in my opinion. A lot of funders are just tossing in mandates for SciComm in grants that I think are very inappropriate. We discussed this a bit on the #EMBOPodcast with Maria Leptin & Fiona Watt (after min 24) https://www.embo.org/podcasts/i-learned-early-on-that-you-can-do-a-lot-with-a-small-amount-of-money/
@cyrilpedia @NicoleCRust I totally agree with this as an issue. In general, there is a worrying trend that today's academic grants want to achieve *all* the things: not just cool research projects, but more/better communication &outreach, be translational, pursue open science, achieve gender equality... All of these goals are worthwhile, but expecting every scientist/project to achieve everything at once is misguided. Having targeted programs addressing these could be much more impactful.
@cyrilpedia
Thanks - I look forward to listening.
It is tricky. So much of the science ethos is "figure it out". We aren't taught to teach, but we do, etc. The investment required to do SciComm well is underestimated (and the ability to do it is undervalued). But it's also a good thing and should be incentivized. I guess that's the solution - incentivizes (as opposed to requirements) are probably the way to go here.