I started writing when I was 28 years old. I was struggling with my research work in graduate school, so I started gaming to relieve my stress. I knew that video games were a distraction, but blogging about gaming gave me an excuse to spend time thinking about games while feeling like I was being productive.
My writing was over-written, long-winded, and filled with grammatical errors. Enough of my fellow geeks seemed to like it, so I continued. The more I wrote, the better I got, and the more I liked it. After a few years I switched to science blogging, followed by freelance writing. Today, I work with words as my full-time job.
This seems like a lovely story about someone who connects with their passion and succeeds after chasing it. In my case, that narrative isn’t quite right. In fact, I always liked writing, but I never considered it a career or even a hobby. Why was this?
One of the causes was the anti-writing bias in science.
Understanding the Anti-Writing Bias in Science
Science is partly communicated with words. However, scientists often see these words as a necessary evil for sharing the important stuff: data and results. You might think I mean “numbers,” but that isn’t it. I think many scientists believe scientific theories and knowledge are above the world of communications. Facts and physical laws make the world go round, and therefore stand above representation.
So, any effort to gussy up the packaging of these truths is either puffery or deception. Real scientists should just lay out the facts and let their audience interpret them.
This attitude is short-sighted and naïve. In the 21st century, attention is scarce, and everyone is fighting for it. Just laying out the facts is about as attention-grabbing as a shopping list. Also, consider the impact of your research outside of academia! If your work is unreadably technical, policymakers, businesspeople, and the public will ignore it. Scientists with better communication skills are more likely to make an impact.
Writing Careers in Science
The science education system is essentially a training program for professors. Students who excel at science in high school are encouraged to apply for science university programs. The best undergraduate students go to graduate school, and the best graduate students become professors. While this path is never explicitly endorsed, any deviation is tantamount to admitting defeat.
While going through school, I saw writing as a separate world. Words weren’t really my problem since I was an (aspiring) scientist focused on academic success. Ironically, it was only once I realized that I probably wouldn’t make it as a scientist that I discovered writing, which has led to my professional success.
There is a whole universe of science writing jobs, ranging from the technical to the popular. Many of these careers are better paying and more prestigious than being an assistant lecturer at Nosebleed University. Young scientists are not introduced to these opportunities, meaning they have limited opportunities to build the necessary skills, experience, or networks to succeed.
More should be done to integrate writing into science education. This is not a distraction but a necessary complement to scientific research. Hopefully, it will also help to break down bias from scientists toward non-scientific professions.
