Humans are curious. From childhood we seek to understand the world above, around and below us. We are constantly asking ‘why?’ But societal, time, economic or other pressures gradually erode our ability or willingness to engage with new information. The world is too big for us to understand on our own. We begin to question fewer things and are prepared to accept simpler answers at face value.
But not everyone. George Bernard Shaw wrote in Man and Superman that reasonable people adapt to their world, while unreasonable people try to adapt the world – and thus progress requires unreasonable people. Or, in other words, those who keep asking questions.
That instinct to refuse to accept the world as is, and to delve deeper, is the driver of scientific research.
It also drives good journalism.
Sating curiosity
At its best, journalism sates humanity’s curiosity by providing access, in as impartial a manner as possible for individuals, to a wider knowledge base of facts, opinions and events than most of us could never hope to obtain on our own. It allows us to maintain our curiosity by outsourcing the informal gathering and dissemination of information to reporters and media outlets.
The formal dissemination of scientific knowledge occurs through the academic publishing process such as EMBO Press’ journals and through regulatory agency notices for developments such as new drug treatments.
But these are written for specialist audiences in specialist language and thus not easily accessible to wider society. The information needs to be accessible to inspire the next generation, to spark creativity and encourage innovation, and to allow better informed decision-making by governments and individuals.
This is partially the role of science journalists – to help ‘translate’ specialist knowledge into real world concepts and more accessible language. Of course, many other individuals and groups do this in government, academia, industry and institutions (like EMBO).
However, to me there is a fundamental difference between these wider efforts in science communication and the practice of science journalism. The latter must provide multiple external viewpoints and not the author’s personal or organizational views. It is there to serve the public, not science or its institutions.
The Maria Leptin | EMBO Science Journalism Fellowships funds sabbaticals at research institutions for journalists and assists researchers in transferring to a journalism career. The scheme is funded by a personal donation by former EMBO Director Maria Leptin and administered by EMBO with the assistance of an external expert Advisory Board.
As former postdoctoral researcher, journalism fellow and current freelance journalist Dr Valentin Hammoudi observed: “For me, science communication or popularizing science was researching the answer to something and trying to explain it. In journalism, you give the opportunity to people to talk and explain – experts, researchers. That is where I learned the most.”
The cheerleader trap
Journalism must clearly differentiate between factual material and opinion. It must not promote any one view, product or institution. But science journalism can also face a trap of its own making – what might be called ‘becoming a cheerleader for science’ only supporting their idol (in this case, science as solely positive). An alternate version is ‘reporting’ to please and promote the journalist’s sources rather than the wider public and its interests.
But in the current world where journalists are disenfranchised through closure or shrinking of news outlets and tightening government and legal restrictions in some countries, it is all too easy to lose sight of the aspiration to report ‘without fear or favor’. This is especially the case in science where access is often controlled by the very people whose work you report on – the scientists and their institutions.
To ensure this trap is avoided, journalists first need fair access to the world of research. Yet spending time with researchers has become increasingly difficult for many journalists, both because of the ever-rising demands from their media to publish more and quicker – hence keeping them deskbound – and by sometimes overly protective institutional barriers which desire only positive press about ‘their’ scientists.
To meet the rigorous standards society expects of journalists and avoid the cheerleading trap, it seems essential that science reporting include not only the latest breakthrough and what it does or might mean to wider society, but also a careful expert-driven triage of ‘science breakthroughs’ so that only truly excellent and credible research is more widely disseminated. Journalism is about choice – and because it must be unbiased, that choice must be informed.
Equally, science journalism must also report on the reality of policy and funding pressures, and ethical dilemmas, which affect the what, how and when research is conducted, as well as reporting the uncomfortable reality that not all experiments work as planned, that knowledge is often not absolute, that fraud does occur, and that scientific progress is exactly that: always moving, and never static.
This ‘negative’ aspect of science reporting can be unpopular among special interest groups within funders or academia. By exposing to the disinfectant of truth the wider reality of science, it can also undermine (and thus face the wrath of) those responsible for the explosion of ‘fake news’ and conspiracy theories designed to destroy public trust in democracy and its institutions.
As Lithuanian journalist and journalism fellow Goda Raibyte-Aleksa told me: “When I only wrote about the discoveries, it was all nice – the sparkles and unicorns and everything. But when you start raising questions about vaccinations during the pandemic, for instance, then you receive threats.”
Conspiracy central
The extent to which various conspiracy theories have poisoned public debate was highlighted by the Eurostat Special Eurobarometer on public attitudes to science and technology in 2025 which asked whether a series of controversial statements were true or false.
The survey found the statement ‘viruses have been produced in government laboratories to control our freedom’ was the majority opinion in seven of the EU 27 member states, and even of a third of respondents in the UK which prides itself on extensive scientific, media and public engagement with and interest in science.
Whose role is it to address these falsehoods? When political, community or religious organizations may be responsible for helping spread the ‘alternate facts’, does the primary responsibility devolve to the research community itself? ‘Scientists’ still hold – usually – a relative position of trust in most societies. But they are also often seen as aloof or not engaged with wider societal issues.
When academic research is funded by society, and society is questioning the rationale for that support in even small ways, researchers should actively seek opportunities for non-judgmental listening to the concerns and beliefs of people who are not highly engaged with science, and whose political views may (now) be anathema to the individual researcher.
And this listening must be followed by open discussion – not lecturing and not ‘educating’ but persuading or at least creating doubt about supposed ‘facts’. Of necessity, these activities will be at smaller scales involving tens of people, not thousands – and yet tackling misinformation on the industrial scale we see now requires much wider action.
Houston, we have a problem!
But as former EMBO journalism fellow and highly experienced science journalist Mićo Tatalović noted: “During my fellowship, I repeatedly heard scientists despair at the wider socio-political situation and trying to relate their work to better public understanding of evidence-based thinking. But they often do it from a fairly naïve perspective, perhaps unaware of their own lack of expertise in this wider field, that doesn’t account for complex individual and societal experiences that lead some people to reject science.”
We see a clear role for science journalism in this society-wide activity, through its ability to reach mass audiences in the thousands or millions – but only as a ‘critical’ actor, not cheerleader, by not taking sides and instead striving for the truth by testing, questioning and engaging in an unbiased way.
Money, money, money, it’s a rich man’s world
It is unrealistic or worse to assume that journalists can do this without support. Food needs to be bought, rent or mortgages paid, children educated, etc. True, some journalists earn significant sums as television hosts. Most, especially in developing nations, earn a pittance or nothing.
EMBO – and our supporter Maria Leptin – understands that Journalists need financial support. We want them able to delve more deeply into current research topics so they can better understand the inflection points, to ensure greater personal exposure to a wider range of opinions, researchers, technologies and views, and allow time to think. They need time and opportunity to step back from the daily grind of news and press releases that clog their inboxes, so they can think and report about wider, bigger issues in science and how it can help society in the future.
As EMBO Director Fiona Watt says: “By supporting science journalism, we hope to improve engagement of the research community with wider society.” A pretty good objective to guide our efforts!
