Science journalists don’t always need to read academic papers, but it might help

The Guardian's Alok Jha introduces the debate at the Royal Institution

Earlier this week, the Royal Institution in London held an event to discuss the differences between scientists and science journalists and what they can do to better work together.

The debate moved very quickly across a range of issues and it was often hard to take much from a train of thought before we were on to the next topic.

But one thread that stayed with me, and looking at Twitter I would guess with other people too, was the issue of whether science journalists should read the research papers on which they are reporting.

There actually seem to be a few questions here. Should science journalists be able to read academic papers? Should they always read the papers? Should they try to read the papers wherever possible?

As someone who rarely reads the primary academic research I’m reporting on and, without wishing to sound boastful, rarely gets complaints about misunderstanding the science, my initial reaction to all these questions was no.

The debate has forced me to justify my position and I still think there are several good reasons for saying no, but I also think my practice may change slightly as a result.

I’m also aware I don’t often write about medical trials, which make up a lot of science reporting, and so I have to apply my judgement based on the experience I do have from covering engineering, physics, chemistry, the environment and some biology.

My first reason is a practical one: there often just isn’t time to read a paper, especially a long one and especially a complicated one. It’s almost always quicker to reach for the phone and speak to the researcher directly, which also gives you the chance to get the background info that turns a summary of research into a proper story.

Secondly, even the most intelligent, knowledgeable journalist may not understand a piece of new research – especially if it’s written up badly. And a journalist with no expertise in a field is even more likely to struggle. Speaking to the researcher means they can break things down into basic terms, another reason a phone call is preferable if you’re tight for time.

This leads on to what is probably my key reason for believing journalists don’t always need to read papers: they very often don’t need to understand the full level of detail in a paper because their readers don’t need to. If they did they could just read the paper themselves.

It may even be better for journalists to keep a certain level of distance from the detail, in order to make it easier to keep their descriptions of the work clear and avoid using jargon or prior knowledge of the topic.

Sometimes, however, I think reading the paper probably is a necessity, particularly if the journalist knows the research is controversial or the method is particularly important. 

This doesn’t mean applying some kind of science literacy test that precludes anyone from writing about science if they can’t grapple a paper, especially given that, as highlighted above, there will always be  instances where you need things explained more basically.

But journalists do need to ask questions that their readers want to know the answers to and this can sometimes mean knowing enough background information to challenge the researcher.

Having said that, and this leads me to my final reason, I’m not convinced that it’s a journalist’s job to interrogate scientists, as some people seem to believe, rather than intelligently and circumspectly reporting on their work.

Yes, we should question the significance of research and ask the researcher to justify what seem like obvious problems with it. Often it’s important to set the research in context of other work and seek outside comment on where there might be errors.

However, I don’t believe it’s a journalist’s task to pull a paper apart, scrutinising the method in detail and looking for any possible flaws. That’s what peer review is for.

On the other hand, the process of writing this blog has made me consider whether I should make more of an effort to read papers where appropriate and I think the answer’s probably yes.

Journalists shouldn’t have to be able to understand academic papers to write about science and saying they should always read them is impractical and unhelpful.

Then again, sometimes doing so could yield useful information or even occasionally the vital element of a story that turns an article from a forgettable report into a historic piece of journalism.