You are in charge of writing about many topics for Penn Medicine. Is there one you find most interesting?

It’s hard to say. If I had to pick one area that has totally captivated me since I was a kid it would have to be, broadly, the science of the brain, neuroscience. How the brain works.

Which subject is most challenging to write about?

For me, the immune system. It is so complex. Immune response is so important to everyday life. The way your body handles it is very complex. There’s adaptive and innate immunity, the different cells in a person’s body, there’s a lot that goes into it. It’s amazingly interesting but also complex. Figuring out how to boil it all down for an article or press release can get tricky. I find myself having to go back and give myself the 101 pep talk. I define the terms in my head and review before I go on any interviews.


Do you ever get overwhelmed with science?

Sometimes, but I always go back to a very favorite book of mine, Bird by Bird, by Ann Lamott. Have you ever read it?


I have not, but I might have to now.

You should! If I’m ever feeling overwhelmed I go back and read her book. It reminds me when I’m tackling complex subjects that I need to take it one word at a time, one sentence at a time. If you do that the whole will come together. The title comes from her brother. He had a to do a report in high school on the birds of North America, and their father gave her brother the advice, “Son, just take it bird by bird." Don’t look at all the flocks at once; just talk it bird by bird. You hear this kind of advice in a lot of different ways, but it’s great advice to remember, especially as a science writer when there is a lot of detail involved.

You were once the editor of The Scientist as well as a freelance journalist. Which job did you like best?

For me it always about blending work with my personal life. They were both rewarding in different ways. I always knew I wanted to have a freelance position to see if I could make it, and I did. I did really well with it. My book also gave me a chance to write about something other than receptors, environmental science, etc., and professional columns where you were told what to write. Freelance gave me a chance to write about what I liked. My training is actually in environmental science, not bioscience. I learned that on the job. I think that is where you learn the most, more so then in any classroom. Now I’m in my midcareer and I love being back with the students and mentoring. It gives me a sense of accomplishment. It is also steady and there is a certain comfort in that. I like having a secure position where I can grow.


Did you learn more as freelance writer or at The Scientist?

Well my first position I learned a lot from the editor. I think every job you have you will learn something new. I am always learning new skills, like how to compromise. Different editors want different things, so you have to adjust to that.


Would you say you’ve learned a lot just being in a science environment?

Oh yes. Like I said before, any time you are doing hands-on experience, you learn more. I always encourage students, in any profession, to get out into the field.

What advice would you give aspiring science writers about getting a good start in the world of science writing?

I’m going to refer to my book for this one. It depends on your background or interests. Know it’s a one-way move from being a scientist to a science writer. It’s much harder to go back to being a scientist once you switch to science writing. It is a competitive job market. Be a quick study. Hopping from field to field, you need to be able to know how to learn quickly and write about it. Most science writers have had a lifelong passion for writing. Not all scientists are good communicators, as you may know. Ha-ha.


That is a stereotype we talked about in class.

Well, I think it is somewhat true. You have to be able to blend knowing science and being a good writer. Not all scientists have the mindset to write for the general public. They are great with coming up with acronyms, ha. Also, be good at communicating with others about science broadly, not so much in depth.


Why do you say that?

Knowing broadly about a subject, even if you are not educated deeply in it can help you a lot when interviewing a scientist. You won’t feel as lost and you’ll have something to fall back on, feel confident about.


Many science writers believe science is found in everything. Do you agree that any story can be made into a science story?

Yea, I think so. Sometimes you need to be a bit creative. It may not be very obvious what the science spin on the story is.


At the NASW meeting, I attended a session that touched on “pack” journalists, the journalists who use spress releases as their story, resulting in the same story in different media outlets. How much of a problem do you feel this is? And if it is a problem, how do you suggest changing it?

Especially when something is hyped with little data, everyone wants to write about it, but there is minimal information on the subject, so the journalists turn to the press release. Answering the question about how to change it is tough. Off the top of my head, I would say better communication between the scientists and writers. Sometimes it is hard because the journalists are asked to do more with less. So it’s a tough question.


Is there a secret to good science writing?

Lots of background readings! Always brush up before going into an interview so you have the basics in your mind. Try to think visually when you write! Always write with metaphors; it helps make it understandable to a non-scientist. Ask a lot of questions and always go back and edit, edit, edit! Oh, and know your audience.


Can anyone be a science writer?

If you have the interest and the drive and you don’t have any knee-jerk reactions to science or math. You don’t need a science background to make you a great science writer.


But, do you feel your educational background in science gives you an advantage compared to someone without such degrees?

Nope, I don’t think so. Although with interviewing I would say it makes it easier in some cases. It has been helpful when I’m interviewing scientists themselves.


You mean knowing terms and processes of science?

No, I mean some scientist like to know when you come in that you have a background in science. They like to know you are on the same page as them.


So, anyone be a science writer?

If you have the interest and the drive and you don’t have any jerk reactions to science or math. You don’t need a science background to make you a great science writer.

-Stephanie Pascarella

While attending the National Association of Science Writers conference, I had the privilege of meeting an emerging science writer, Laura Petersen. Laura graduated from the University of California San Diego with her Bachelor’s Degree in Communications. As a student at UCSD she received a great deal of experience from internships and editing the student newspaper, the Warren Briefs, for three years.

What about science writing interests you the most?

Writing about science gives me the opportunity to learn about the world around me and I enjoy conveying that newfound knowledge to readers. In particular, I hope to learn and write about climate change and how we are going to adapt because I feel this is the most important issue facing our generation.

Out of the articles you’ve written about science, what has been your favorite topic?

I enjoyed writing about a nonprofit working to save the rainforest in Ecuador and Peru. I also enjoyed writing a story about a father/son team building a rocket in their garage to compete in the Lunar Challenge X-Prize competition.

Why were those your favorites?

I enjoyed sharing with readers the unusual characters in both articles. The founder for the environmental non-profit is a living example of the power of one, and the father/son team was totally quirky. I also liked explaining the science in each piece — the rapid rate of deforestation and how to build a rocket.

Do you believe that the NASW conference will help your science writing career? If so, how?

I definitely think the NASW conference will help me in my science writing career. The NASW conference was an incredible introduction to the field of science writing. I learned a great deal about the industry by talking with other working professionals. I also learned about a wide variety of scientific research, which was not just interesting, but provided ideas for where to look for stories in my coverage area, and beyond!

What science topics do you hope to tackle in the future?

Well, dreaming big, it would be awesome to write about how the environment is changing all over the world, travel expenses paid of course! I am particularly interested in marine environments. I would totally be down writing a first person account of exploring the sea floor in the Alvin deep sea submersible.


You can find some of Laura Petersen’s work at the Del Mar Times and the Solana Beach Sun.

She gets it.

Jyllian Kemsley, writer and associate editor of Chemical and Engineering News, the magazine for the American Chemical Society, understands what it’s really like to be scientist. She knows the agony of data that doesn’t make sense, the staying up all night to do just one more experiment, and that smoothbeautiful click when it comes together.

That’s because she actually is a scientist.

Kemsley got her PhD in bioinorganic chemistry from Stanford University in 2003. There she overlapped slightly with my research adviser, who did post-doctoral work in the same lab. She asked about him as we sat down for an interview in the late October sunlight of Palo Alto.

I whined that he had asked me to schlep eight pounds of Peet’s coffee back to Indiana, and she laughed.

“Nice to know he hasn’t changed,” she said.

Kemsley’s familiarity with graduate student/research adviser dynamic, and the goings on in science labs in general, is something that’s invaluable to her as a science writer. She earned a certificate in the subject from the U.C. Santa Cruz program, doing much of the coursework while she was writing her dissertation.

Since then, Kemsley has freelanced for several publications, including the Santa Cruz Sentinel, Lux Research, and Nanotech Report. She’s also the mom of three kids, and works partly from her home in the Bay Area. We talked about what it’s like to be both a scientist and a science writer.

How is science writing different than working in a chemistry lab?

You’re obviously not playing with chemicals anymore. What I do is not as deeply focused on one thing. But I have to understand a subject to be able to write to it. My level of understanding definitely varies if I’m writing three paragraphs or three pages, because you can’t tell someone else about something unless you understand it. I’m hearing about other people’s work, I’m not the one in the lab doing the experiments. What I hear is what it took someone else several years to pull together. So I think I am getting a higher level view than a person working in a lab.

Is the thought process any different?

I don’t think it is, because you still have to think very critically. You still have to say, does this make sense? But I’m asking why rather than devising an experiment to figure out why. To do a good job with a story I can’t just write down what someone says to me. I have to think critically about it, and if there are any problems, I have to think about who are the best people are to provide insight into the work.

A laser experiment in Kemsley’s story on the validity of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, a tenet in physical chemistry. Image from Chemical and Engineering News, photo by Etienne Garand.

Why did you decide to go into science writing?

I had worked for Merck before I went to graduate school, and had done an internship with a biotech company while I was in grad school. And I knew I didn’t want to go into industry. Academia had lost its allure.

I discovered science writing by accident, despite the fact that I got Chemical & Engineering News and Science on my desk every week. It had never occurred to me to question who writes the news stuff in there. A friend doing the American Association of Advancement of ScienceMass Media Fellowship mentioned in passing that she had heard about these training courses in science writing. And I spent the next two hours on the web looking up these programs. I had been thinking I’d find a post-doctoral research position to give myself more time, then realized I’d spent more time looking for science writing programs than looking for a post-doc. So I sat back and said, “Huh. What does this tell me?”

With a PhD already, doing a science writing program that was also a master’s degree was very unappealing. Doing more science classes wasn’t going to get me anymore. And I lucked out that I was in the Bay Area, Santa Cruz was in my backyard. It was the best program for my skill set. It’s basically a one year boot camp in reporting and writing. And I got in.

Has having a PhD helped you or hindered you, as a writer?

I think for what I do, it has helped me. It gives me credibility with our sources. But when I was a freelancer, I didn’t necessarily advertise it. If I were freelancing, depending on the publication, I probably wouldn’t advertise the PhD, because the general assumption is that PhD scientists can’t write. But I think it can be effective for gaining credibility, particularly for academic scientists. A lot of sources, even for Chemical & Engineering News, will say, “And what’s your background?” I’ll tell them I have a PhD in chemistry, and they’ll say, “Okay, then I don’t have to explain x, y, and z to you.”

Scientists are often gun-shy in talking to reporters because they are, I think, to some degree, justifiably concerned that things are going to get twisted and distorted. And I think it’s even different having been a graduate student because they know you understand the culture, that you understand what it takes experimentally and what the limitations can be in terms of drawing conclusions from data. And this is not to say that good science reporters can’t do that without the PhD; they certainly can. But I think it does give some scientists a comfort level with me that they might not have otherwise.

An ancient Mayan sculpture, from Kemsley’s story on the chemistry of the dye Mayan Blue. Image from Chemical and Engineering News, photo by the Field Museum.

You’re a product of the Santa Cruz writer’s program. You’ve also had an internship at Chemical & Engineering News. Which do you think has taught you more about being a science writer?

I’d have to say the science writing program. I was actually surprised when I did the internship at Chemical & Engineering News how much easier reporting and writing was in practice than it was for class. We got edited so intensely and so closely in the writing program, whereas most of my stuff got in the magazine without a whole lot of editing. The other thing that was so hard for me at Santa Cruz was that we were always writing for a general audience, if I remember correctly at an 8th grade level. And that’s a very difficult audience for me to write for. I do much, much better when my audience is at a higher education level, particularly science for scientists. So writing for Chemical & Engineering News is inherently easier for me than for writing for a general audience.

What is the best experience that you’ve ever had as a science writer?

Honestly, I still think it’s seeing my stuff in print. There’s still, and I suspect there always will be, this real feeling of accomplishment when I get the magazine and I see the story. This is having seen the proofs; there’s something else about seeing the glossy pages. Often by the time I file a story, I pretty much hate it. But when I read it on page in the magazine, it always seems so much better than it did when I last saw it.


What’s the experience that has taught you the most?

There was a story I did when I was interning for Chemical & Engineering News, that was about a pair of papers that had come out in the Journal for the American Chemical Society. One of the things that Chemical & Engineering News routinely does is send either parts of stories or entire stories back to our sources, depending on the situation. This is to ensure that we get the science correct, and make sure there are no misunderstandings. We have some standard text that we send along with that, which is basically please check for scientific accuracy, while I’m happy to correct any errors, and we’ll consider and other suggestions you may have, the final decision on magazine content are up to the editorial staff of the magazine.

In this case, I presented the work, and there were three main criticism of it. I had three different sources going into each of these points. They all said it’s really interesting work, but here’s where I see the potential flaws of it. To these three outside sources, I sent their parts back to them. But I chose to send the entire story back to the principal researcher. And he was angry. Because he felt that he had dealt with those criticisms in the papers, they were not something I should be raising in the story. I got back this six-page letter; he had commented on just about every sentence of the story.

A figure from Kemsley’s story on the components of human breast milk. Image from Chemical and Engineering News.

At that point, I wasn’t going to change the story. I felt that what I was doing was legitmate, and my editors agreed. So I wrote back and said, I understand that you think you dealt with these in the papers, but they’re still valid criticisms of the work, and they’re fair to include. At that point he went to my boss, my editor, with the same thing, and Ron (my editor) backed me up. But it was still very, very stressful.

And what was really interesting, was when the story came out, he wrote back and said what a great story it was. And I hadn’t changed anything.

The conclusion afterward was that really he was just trying to bully me. And when he realized he couldn’t do that, he decided that it was pretty good after all. So it was a good lesson in not letting myself be bullied. I do always try to take into consideration source comments, even when it’s not correcting a mistake. But there are ones who will take it too far and you need to be ready to stand up to that. And it’s also nice to have editors who will stand up to that, too.


How did you get your job at Chemical & Engineering News?

They pretty much dropped it in my lap. I had interned with them, and I’d freelanced with them. The former assistant managing editor for the Science and Technology department retired a year before in September, and the person who was going to be promoted into his job called me in August and said, “Well Ron’s retiring in September, do you want a staff job?” And I did not think that was coming.

When I had interned with them, there were a couple of positions that had opened up right when I was finishing, and the idea had been floated to hire me into one of those. But they were insistent that I be in Washington D.C. There was just no way around that, and I didn’t think it had changed.

So my first response to the editor when she called was, “You realize that I’m not willing to relocate, right?” And she said “Yeah, that’s fine.” But I wasn’t entirely ready to go back to work full time, I was still working part time at that point. My daughter, Laryn, was turning three and my twin boys were turning one. So I originally told her, no I don’t think I can do this.

After I got off the phone with her I called my husband, and said “You’re not going to believe what just happened.” He and I talked it through, and decided that maybe we could make it work. So I called Amanda back 45 minutes later and said, “Um, can we start that conversation over again?” Fortunately, she was just fine with that.


Do you have any advice for an aspiring science writer?

If you really think it’s what you want to do, I say go for it. I love what I do, it’s a lot of fun, and it’s very interesting. Chemical & Engineering News is not territorial; although we have rough beats, we’re pretty much free to work on what interests us. So in the past year, I’ve written about purifying sewage for drinking water, the Born-Oppenheimer approximation in physical chemistry, the television show “Breaking Bad,” and a graduate student at UC Merced who’s agreed to a plea deal for stealing chemicals and equipment from the university for making methamphetamine. So, there’s not a lot there to get bored with. At this point, I arguably have the most eclectic story list at Chemical & Engineering News. But my editors have told me that they appreciate that, and I appreciate the freedom to work on whatever I want. There’s no shortage of things for us to write about.