There are crucial, life-changing moments when access to reliable information and expert analysis is essential. Cast your mind back to 2020, when the news of a deadly coronavirus was all-consuming and we needed to know: Am I safe? Are my loved ones safe? Why did this happen? How long will this last?
Almost overnight, it seemed like every reporter, regardless of their beat, was designated a health and science reporter, their minds suddenly occupied with concepts like virus transmission, PCR testing, distancing social and vaccine development. In those first frightening days, weeks and months, society turned to journalists to end confusion and misinformation and to cover stories that could save lives.
The pandemic has only highlighted what has always been true: science journalism is an essential public service, informing communities about society’s most important issues, from climate to reproductive health to AI explosion. Yet we have created a world in which many journalists or editors view “science journalism” as a distant relative of their own work.
For too long, science journalism has been treated as something separate, something additional — the domain of specialists writing for an audience already deeply interested and informed about science. It’s bad. It’s bad for journalism and it’s bad for the public we serve.
There was a time, decades ago, that some remember fondly as the heyday of science journalism. Many newspapers had offices dedicated to science, health and the environment. They presented weekly scientific sections. Magazines with the word “science” in their titles dotted the newsstands. The science sector (and employment and income) was thriving.
But this period also perpetuated and deepened the perceived divide between science journalism and the rest of journalism. This has reinforced the inaccurate sentiment that science coverage is and should always be the preserve only of journalists who have made it their full-time profession, a profession that requires extensive training in biology, astrophysics or statistics. Distinctly, our industry viewed science coverage as not the purview of local reporters covering the city council, school board or state legislature.
It doesn’t have to be that way. We cannot allow this to continue like this.
Scientific journalism is a way of thinking, a journalistic practice anchored in evidence: how it is collected, how it is verified, how it comes up against the realities of communities. Science journalism is about whether or not the city’s plan to address PFAS contamination in local waterways is likely to work.
This means debunking vaccine misinformation by explaining the methods used in vaccine trials and shining a light on the devastation caused by vaccine-preventable diseases. This means exploring the link between urban heat islands and increased crime rates and questioning efforts to implement cooling solutions. This means bridging public health and policy by examining the opioid crisis through both addiction science and investigative reporting on pharmaceutical companies’ marketing of addictive painkillers.
In these ways and more, science is relevant to all aspects of journalism. It underpins almost every story that interests us. Climate change is not just a science story: it is a story of infrastructure, migration, equity and politics. AI is not just about technology: it is about labor, environmental resources and governance. Public health is not just about epidemics: it is about housing, declining ecosystems, education and systemic inequalities.
The siloing of science journalism is dangerous because it leaves the public vulnerable to misinformation. This undermines journalism’s ability to contextualize global crises and make sense of them at a local level. This deprives people of the opportunity to appreciate the evidence surrounding the issues they care about. And it allows powerful actors – from corporations to politicians – to manipulate public understanding by filling the void left by the lack of evidence-based reporting.
The newsrooms that succeed will be those that embrace science as a guiding principle at all times. This change will require systemic changes. Fewer than 3% of journalists and editors in the United States – and even fewer elsewhere in the world – have formal training in science, health or climate. But integrating scientific evidence and perspectives into reporting is a learnable skill, within the reach of any competent journalist. Managers will have to invest in the training of their journalists. Journalists will need to establish stronger connections with the scientific community, developing relationships with researchers who can offer insight and context. And editors will need to reframe how articles are assigned, ensuring that science is not limited to the “science, health and environment” section (if there still is one) but is integrated throughout rhythms.
Imagine a local newsroom where this approach is standard. A City Hall reporter covering housing policy in a flood-prone area would include projections about sea level rise and its disproportionate impact on low-income communities. A health reporter investigating maternal mortality would draw on research into systemic racism in health care. A political reporter covering artificial intelligence legislation would detail its implications for labor markets, privacy and energy consumption. You already remember stories you’ve read that fit your expectations, right?
It is not a question of transforming generalists into scientists, nor of asking every journalist to master statistics. It’s about giving journalists and editors enough knowledge to ask better questions, follow credible evidence, and reject false equivalencies and media hype. It is also about recognizing that science is essential to understanding the world.
Integrating science more fully into journalism will not only benefit readers: it will build public trust in both science and journalism itself. Audiences exposed to thoughtful, well-explained reporting on scientific evidence will be better equipped to distinguish credible journalism from misinformation. And in an age where misinformation thrives and even the very definition of a fact is at stake, building trust is journalism’s most urgent project.
The challenges we face – from climate change to pandemics to the rapid acceleration of AI – are vast and interrelated. Covering them well requires curiosity, rigor and humility. And that requires breaking down silos, not only between sectors, but also between journalists and the communities they serve.
In 2025, journalism will thrive not by doubling down on specialization, but by recognizing that the methods and values of science journalism are essential to its future. The divides that divide us – between science and mainstream journalism, between local, national and global issues, between journalists and their audiences – will diminish. And the best journalism will arise from what develops in these intermediary spaces.