Attention:
The future needs you
Across the great divide:science
writers are needed, says Weldon, to make sense of a changing world
-and to interpret it to lay people and philosophers alike
Wanted:Science Writer to win prize.
Group -16 to 19. Need not be young scientist. Could be all-rounder
drifted into the arts by mistake. Or natural classicist skulking
in a physics lab because Latin wasn't on the menu. Or failing
in maths because as with Einstein the questions don't add up.
Or falling behind in creative writing because though she can write
-everyone says so -she can't make upstories, or the teacher 's
nuts anyway. (The battle starts young.) Or dropped out, played
out, after AS levels, and now wanting in again. Or has a whole
lot of brain not necessarily measured by exams, and be getting
a depressed view of himself, herself.
This option does not appear in
career booklets. BASF / Daily Telegraph Science Writer, science
journalist, communicator extraordinaire. Could be you. Sounds
male - but fifty per cent is not, should be not.
Could be you - if you 're all round
interested, prepared to find out, do the mental legwork, and pass
on what you've found out to others, with rationality, verve, energy
and delight. Five hundred pounds. A trip to America. One in the
eye for the others. Think of it. Do it.
Wanted: Science Writer -20-28. So what happened to you? Stuck
in a blind alley, chafing, more to say than anyone lets you? Or
when you do they look at you blankly? Per-haps you 're really
interested in how genetics shapes the world stage but somehow
all you know about is the cosmos. Perhaps the interlapping of
all things gets to you? Or the public's ignorance of statistics
horrifies you, or lack of funding for renewable energy sources
-in which case do not keep it to yourself, or bore your friends,
enter this com-petition now and put your thoughts, and your knowledge(having
done due research if it 's outside your normal field) and your
energies on to paper.
Write, leave a day, look again, rearrange paragraphs, tidy up,
and deliver. The money and trip to America may not be yours (though
again, it maybe) but you've made a start. Learn from the winner,
read the science columns in the few nationals that carry them
(a scandal) give it a local twist and try your local paper. Your
country needs you.
After decades of Two Culture thinking
- (Arts that way, Science this way: never the twain shall meet),
society's in a parlous state. (OK, you had to look that word up,
many do: too bad: someone's got to dumb up this country - could
be you.) Our scientists are unable to argue their case convincingly;
our politicians unable to understand what 's going on; our media
failing to take notice when it should react, because it all sounds
a bit too complicated to sell papers, or going the other way and
creating scare stories out of nothing.
C P Snow, the novelist, invented the Two Culture term in the
Fifties. He was a novelist as well as a scientist, following in
the great tradition of HG Wells, he of the great speculative mind.
Wells started out as a humble student at Imperial College and
went on to write Kipps , and then, baffled by the public's ignorance
of scientific possibility, the The Time Machine, The War of the
Worlds, and soon. The Snow debate went underground but the reality
did not go away. The divide got worse. Writers of speculative
novels were dismissed as producing ''science fiction ''and received
no critical acclaim, finding their work downgraded to ''genre
''fiction. The extraordinary Philip K Dick -whose work is now
exploited by Hollywood, in films like Blade Runner and Minority
Report -was dismissed at the time for having too many ideas by
half.(Even now, one of our best contemporary writers has to write
under two names -Iain M.Banks for when he sets novels in the future;
Iain Banks for when he's in the here and now-if he's not to hopelessly
con-fuse his readers.)The elite of the present simply could not
take the future seriously.
In the past 10 years science has been fighting back. A new race
of science writers found anew field to work in -not fiction, but
journalism, if only because fact was rapidly becoming so much
stranger than fiction. See it in New Scientist , no longer the
dull, dense magazine it was, but full of the pictures and head-lines
and the mental space that its subject merits. But the circulation
of New Scientist is a quarter what it should be. Readers trained
in the humanities just look past it. It is this we are asking
you to rectify.
Science leaps ahead into the new
century, creating life, defying ageing, altering mood, travelling
in time, miniaturising weapons -so fast turning science fiction
into science fact that the powers and possibilities of the future
are immense. But so are the urgent responsibilities of the here
and now. Science, ''finding out ''for too long its only morality,
leaves society to cope, to make ethical decisions -and society
finds it hardly knows where to begin, such is its ignorance of
scientific matters. All that stuff happened in another department
at school, another building at college, nothing to do with ordinary
folk.
Nowadays thinking moves slowly: science moves fast. Society sets
up its ethical committees only to find them irrelevant by the
time they've delivered. Science writers, science journalists,
science popularisers, are needed to bridge the gap, to interpret
the scientists to the philosophers and vice versa. Though science
appears to be victorious, it is in fact in danger. New advances
so baffle the outsider we see a backlash born of ignorance. Say
''cloning ''to the layperson and he thinks you 're talking about
babies. Say ''genetic engineering ''and he thinks it 's something
new and dangerous. Say in a headline ''a fifty per cent increase
''in a certain cancer, and he doesn't think that 0 ·3 goes
up to ·45 out of 20, 000, but that we 're talking half
the population. We witness an alarming, almost religious retreat
into irrationality, into ''naturalism '', in which nature is seen
to know best, and whose interests must be served by destroying
crops, burning labs and killing doctors.' 'Nature ''becomes God,
without the benefit of sacred texts, rules of conduct, or the
interpretation of learned priests. Do not think that creationism
or worse could not happen here.
From these dangers we look to the science writers, the communicators
across the divide, to save us. Also to invoke public opinion,
so that science does proceed with proper caution, with necessary
checks and balances, thinking it natural to police itself, and
ethics to be part of its ordinary remit, so that a hundred, two
hundred, five hundred years from now we end up with a decent society
half way to paradise, not slipping down into hell. It may sound
a tall order, but start here, now..
Fay Weldon is the writer
in residence at The Savoy
David Bradley , 1991:''
Winning for my article 'Not every sperm is sacred '(sex sells,
as they say)gave me such a boost. At the time, I had written a
few pieces for New Scientist and a couple of trade magazines but
after that I was 'an award-winning science writer ', which gave
me a lot more confidence to think seriously about becoming a professional
science writer. I am now a full-time freelance having published
n all the major science publications and The Daily Telegraph.
I've even got a couple of book contributions under my belt now
and run several webzines-www.sciencebase.com.''
Nick Flowers , 1996.''I
got to join science press packs at the UK and US annual science
festivals. Animal behaviourologists, sociologists and off-the-wall
physicists expounded their latest theories at press conferences,
and -with a press badge on my lapel -I got to bombard the labbites
with my own dumb questions afterwards. A real eye opener to the
world of turning science into readable journalism -and a great
experience.''
Paula Gould , 1997, freelance
science writer and editor, based in Chester.'' The Daily Telegraph's
Science Writer competition gave me the motivation I needed to
stop talking about science journalism and have a go. I gained
tremendous confidence from winning and, perhaps more mportantly,
my first newspaper clipping.
Elizabeth Tasker , 1999:
''The Science Writer Awards has to be one of the best competitions
to enter. Entering proves that you have a talent for, and enjoy,
science writing for the public -a vital asset in today's society.
If you win a top prize, you will have the opportunity to meet
scientists and journalists from around the world. Not only does
this give you an insight into the world of journalism and science,
but you will also almost definitely make very useful contacts.
For me, winning marked a real start to my career. I had something
on my CV which lifted it above others and enabled me to get my
first studentship with the European fusion project. This started
a chain which led to more student placements and, ultimately,
my postgraduate place at the University of Oxford, where I am
now studying for a doctorate in astrophysics.'
Lynn Dicks , 1999. ''Becoming
a Science Writer was a massive boost to my career and confidence.
I was studying for a PhD in ecology, which I have since completed,
but I yearned to be a science journalist. Through the competition,
I found myself enjoying canape´s and curries with some pivotal
people n the science press. It 's far easier to make it as a writer
when you know how the media functions, and you've already been
published in The Daily Telegraph! I now work from home as a freelance
science writer and I love it.''
Lewis Brindley, 2000, now
at Manchester University studying Chemistry with Patent Law. ''Whatever
you do, don't enter the awards this year. You could end up in
one of the '50 places to see before you die '. I ended up in San
Francisco, having to shop and picnic under the Golden Gate Bridge.
Other drawbacks include meeting famous scientists and attending
cutting-edge science conferences. Besides, I 'd like to win again.''
Kate Ravilious , 2000. ''I entered on a whim, probably
because I was a bit bored of staring down the microscope for my
PhD and wanted an excuse to have ago at something different. Writing
my entry made me realise that I was much more passionate about
communicating science than actually doing science! Winning gave
me the confidence to have a go at science writing as a career
and was a definite asset when trying to seek commissions. Now
I work as a freelance science writer and feel lucky to have discovered
a job that I really enjoy doing.''
04 Dec
2003


|
 |
|