Emaan Ahmed

October 31, 2019

Science Writing

Research Assessment #5

While I have been researching articles specifically related to the long-form article I intend to

write, in this assessment I shall deviate a bit and explore an aspect of science writing I find particularly

interesting: the ethics of journalism. Science writing is unique in that not only does it aim to

communicate important information about science to the public, but also to analyze the context in which

that information was found and communicated. To understand this concept, I drew from my MOSTEC

Science Writing course’s required reading list to get two pieces surrounding the issue of ethical

journalism: the article ‘I Spent Two Years Trying to Fix the Gender Imbalance in My Stories’ from The

Atlantic and the chapter ‘Resurrecting Henrietta Lacks’ from the book “Writing Beyond Race”. These

pieces fascinated me so much that I partially credit them for sparking my interest in the field of science

writing. Also, I read the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics to see which traits are most

valued in a journalist, and whether they lined up well with the role of a science writer.

The two articles mentioned above both explore certain aspects of common ethical journalism

issues in the context of science. The first one was written by the well-known science writer Ed Yong,

who wrote the piece to reflect on how he found that his own writing had significant gender bias in the

researchers he contacted, and what he did to amend the issue. I greatly admire Ed Yong for his own

accountability, as he recognized a problem in his own writing and sought to fix it with much effort,

eventually writing this piece to help other writers who may be struggling with this same issue. He

represents the best of science writing, who is able to recognize that his own bias may mar his reporting
of what is considered to be objective fact. The next piece discusses an infamously controversial issue in

journalism: the case of Henrietta Lacks. She was a woman whose post-mortem cancer cells were used to

make a significant scientific discovery, but without the permission of her family. This is already an

ethical issue for research science, but what makes it a journalism issue is that a reporter by the name of

Rebecca Skloot wrote a book about Henrietta Lacks where the whole focus is on the discovery and not

the woman who made it possible. ‘Resurrecting Henrietta Lacks’ was very interesting to me, as it

brought to my attention the fact that heedless curiosity was not necessarily the best trait for a journalist

to have. Skloot, in her investigation, was extremely disrespectful of Henrietta Lacks’ remaining family,

refusing to acknowledge their grief and privacy, which is not what a journalist should have done, even if

they were seeking the truth. This issue is highly complex, but the essential takeaway is that all scientific

reporters must take care to responsibly treat each issue they investigate.

The SPJ Code of Ethics fully encapsulates certain personality traits and procedures that take care

of the issue above, focusing on a principle that we determined to be particularly important in MOSTEC

discussions: seeking truth while minimizing harm and being accountable. While it is naturally the role of

a journalist to report the truth as it is, without bias and ulterior motive, they do have some additional

responsibilities. It is important for journalists to consider the consequences of their actions when they

investigate sensitive matters, and to consider the larger context of the issue they are writing about. They

must take care not to blindly report information that may be harmful, such as personal details or private

matters, and write with sensitivity when they are required to do so. When they make a mistake, they

should own up to it and accept responsibility, pledging to do better in the future. These aspects of a

typical journalist are quite typical of the general field, but not so commonly discussed when it comes to

science. Even though science is typically considered to be purely objective, we cannot forget that none
of it was created in a vacuum: all that we know of the world was discovered by humans, who are

inherently flawed. Thus, we must remember that some aspects of science itself may be flawed as well,

though we may not want to acknowledge this fact. It is the role of a science writer to consider these

flaws in their context even as they write about pure scientific fact, which is exactly why this career

appeals to me so much.

Citation

Hooks, Bell. "Tragic Biography: Resurrecting Henrietta Lacks." ​Writing Beyond Race: Living

Theory and Practice,​ Routledge, 2013.

"SPJ Code of Ethics." ​Society of Professional Journalists​, www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.

Accessed 14 Nov. 2019.

Yong, Ed. "I Spent Two Years Trying to Fix the Gender Imbalance in My Stories." ​The

Atlantic​, 6 Feb. 2018,

www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/i-spent-two-years-trying-to-fix-the-gender-imbal

ance-in-my-stories/552404/.