Hey folks! This week’s interview is with Senne Starckx, a Belgian science journalist who writes about everything from quantum physics and astronomy to archaeology and palaeontology. We talk about how to approach unfamiliar subjects, spot dubious scientific claims, explain uncertainty, and why science journalism is journalism first.
Do you remember the first science story you ever wrote?
Really, the first article? That’s hard to say without looking it up, and I probably wouldn’t find it anyway, since it was in an offline magazine. But one of my first ‘big’ interviews was with author Charles Mann, about his book 1491, on the history of the Americas before the arrival of Columbus & Co.
How do you get up to speed when you are covering a field you don’t know well?
I believe that not knowing a certain field too well isn’t necessarily a handicap. It puts you in a similar position to your readers, so you avoid making your writing too difficult or technical. Just ask the expert the right questions and write it up in plain and clear language.
Of course, it’s necessary to follow a field closely enough to identify relevant news, so you can separate the real stuff from the PR bullshit. I think I’m just very curious about a lot of topics.
Are there any warning signs that make you immediately suspicious of a scientific claim?
When claims come from parties that have an agenda, hidden or not. Sometimes it’s just PR; sometimes it comes from ‘opinion makers’ who are cherry-picking evidence to prove their point.
What are the first things you check before deciding whether a new study is actually interesting or important?
Two things: Do I find it interesting myself? And do I want to read more about it?
How do you know when you understand a complicated subject well enough to explain it to somebody else?
Hmm, hard to answer. Maybe you can’t know for sure. With quantum physics, for example, I think I have explained things in the past using concepts that weren’t really correct. So when you explain something, it’s healthy to say when you’re not sure about a certain detail.
Is there a common mistake people make when they try to explain science?
Thinking that science is always ‘right’, or ‘good’, or ‘neutral’. Science is a human endeavour, and we should never forget that people pursue it with certain goals.
What kind of good science story tends to be ignored because it doesn’t produce a dramatic headline?
Great discoveries don’t often result from one-time events, but from many events. Take exoplanets: when life is eventually found on another planet, the discovery will probably be the result of many partial findings, checks and rechecks.
Is there something about science journalism that you have completely changed your mind about?
Science journalism is journalism in the first place. When you start out as a science journalist, you tend to think that the science part is more important.
Read my other interviews on journalism:
Climate hope needs evidence: My interview with Sam Matey-Coste
On jargon and the limits of science storytelling: My conversation with Mohamed Elsonbaty
Inside the Cold War newsroom: My interview with Marcus Ferrar
Thanks for reading! If you enjoy the newsletter, share it with a friend or ten. And if you really enjoyed it, consider upgrading to a paid subscription to support my work.
Elia Kabanov is a London-based science writer exploring technology, cities, nature and history (@metkere).