Science Writing for a General Audience (Popular Science)

Have you ever thought about writing popular science articles?

It's quite a skill to be able to turn complex theories and new ideas into accessible and arresting articles for the general public. I'd suggest you need to have either a science-based background or a bright and very enquiring mind. Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan are excellent examples of the former category, while Bill Bryson might be just as good an exemplar of the second.

Like any skill, it's probably best to start with the simple stuff and work your way upwards, although if you're starting with an outstanding knowledge base, your journey may be in the other direction!

Because sometimes it might even be a disadvantage to be too highly skilled or over-specialised - you might find it really difficult to write at an accessible level. But wherever you come from, and by whatever route you arrive, if you are now a writer and you understand and take interest in scientific subjects, science writing might be just your thing.

One excellent writer, with a background in highly advanced mathematics, is Davide Castelvecchi, who features quite regularly in such prestigious publications as New Scientist and National Geographic. I recently came across his work in a New Scientist article on the rather esoteric subject of 'Loop Quantum Gravity' .

Davide is especially good at adjusting the level of his writing to suit the intended audience, but without it seeming anything other than intelligent and well-read. He'll never insult the intelligence of his readers and neither must you. Your aim should be to educate, inform and entertain your audience - not to show how clever you are.

I was so intrigued and inspired by his article that I wrote a poem on the subject (reproduced below), and sent it to New Scientist. Much to my surprise, they forwarded it to the man himself, who has asked if he can reproduce it on his website.

Naturally, I've agreed:


We measure time by movements,
To and fro -
And space by implication of that time,

But what if neither's real?

A universe where both are consequent
Of abstract mathematics,
Where the stuff
Of stars and all the emptiness between
Is braided formulae
And where the mass
Of all we know and all we thought to know
Has no real mass and yet just has to be.

From Einstein via Bohr the numbers call -
And Newton's apple simply had to fall.


Meanwhile, as a writer with a (less stratospheric) science background, I'm considering a couple of popular science projects myself in the near future.

Watch this space (pun half-intended).

Roy