Ed Yong, a remarkable talent in science writing, has captivated audiences with his compelling narratives that cover a wide array of topics, from orca conservation to the intricacies of human microbiomes, and notably, his acclaimed pandemic coverage.

One of his standout articles explores the origins of dogs, which I previously discussed. For those eager to break into science writing, analyzing Yong's impactful articles is an excellent starting point. If you're uncertain about where to begin, consider examining how he masterfully executes the following techniques:

• Guides readers through an emotional experience

• Establishes a context for expert voices

• Invites readers to reflect at pivotal moments

• Captivates with a strong opening statement. As Yong notes:

  “People often talk about ledes in terms of grabbing attention and conveying information. All true, but ledes are also signals: Their tone and style cue readers into expecting a certain kind of story. Personally, when I encounter a standard inverted-pyramid news lede, I prepare for fast, skimmy reading. When I read a narrative opening, I get ready to engage with the entire article.” – Ed Yong

Two significant lessons I've gleaned from Yong’s writing include:

1. To become a science writer, immerse yourself in writing about science: Yong authored thousands of entries on his now-defunct blog ‘not exactly rocket science’ before embarking on his official journey as a staff science writer. Platforms like Medium are excellent for starting this process.
2. Deconstruct impactful journalism: As Yong suggests, “Actively analyze the work of proficient journalists to understand what makes their writing resonate.”

Currently, Ed Yong serves as a staff writer for the Atlantic, with contributions to prestigious publications such as National Geographic, Scientific American, and the New York Times. He recently received the Victor Cohn Prize for Excellence in Medical Science Reporting for his outstanding pandemic coverage.

Yong is a strong proponent of recognizing the diverse voices involved in scientific endeavors. He emphasizes that effective science writing transcends mere data presentation; it must also evoke an emotional journey, both spatially and psychologically. At a recent talk at the Scripps Research Auditorium, he shared:

“If you take away just one thing from this talk, let it be this: You cannot displace a feeling with a fact. It just does not work. You can only replace a feeling with another feeling.”

Here are four valuable tips for science writing that Yong imparted to emerging journalists at the National Press Club Journalism Institute in 2020.

#1 Avoid Writing to Impress

Yong advises, “Bear in mind that you’re not writing to impress your sources or fellow journalists; your goal is to assist your readers in understanding the world. Take this responsibility seriously and uphold the standards of journalism as a profession and craft.”

As an academic, I strive to ensure my writing aids readers in comprehending complex ideas rather than obscuring them. However, the desire to impress can sometimes cloud this goal. One common pitfall is the overuse of jargon, which can lead to convoluted sentences aimed at demonstrating expertise rather than clarity.

For instance, here’s a convoluted sentence from my dissertation:

“In sum, if a site of engagement is the moment when multiple discourses and practices are linked up through the compositional configurations of semiotic and material resources produced through action, a nexus of practice involves the networks of practice-linkages that are recognizable as repeating configurations of these connections.”

Yikes. Even I find that challenging to decipher!

While jargon can serve as a shorthand for conveying complex ideas to peers, it often alienates a broader audience. Aim to write in a way that clarifies rather than complicates.

#2 Prioritize Thoughtfulness Over Sensationalism

Yong emphasizes the importance of correcting mistakes promptly and transparently. Errors are part of the process, and the Poynter Institute outlines common pitfalls in science writing, such as misrepresenting scientific facts or overselling research outcomes.

Yong advocates for depth over volume in storytelling. Recall the pressure to meet word counts in school? Padding out stories can dilute their impact. As Ursula K. Le Guin notes, “To believe that you can achieve meaning or feeling without coherent, integrated patterning... is like believing you can go for a walk without bones.”

Choosing to shed light on a topic, rather than sensationalizing it, aligns with Yong's advice to focus on illuminating rather than inflaming.

#3 Evaluate Peers by Their Work, Not Their Identity

Yong encourages writers to judge their peers based on the quality of their output and to hold themselves to the same standard. This principle is particularly helpful during moments of rejection.

When faced with rejection from publications, it’s easy to internalize it as a rejection of one’s identity as a writer. Remember, as psychologist Adam Grant wisely states, “No one is rejecting us. They are rejecting a sample of our work, sometimes only after viewing it through a distorted lens.”

#4 Be Mindful of the Advice You Receive

Yong cautions against blindly accepting all advice, noting that it often comes from a place of privilege and luck. Familiar sayings like “Do what is right, not what is easy” or “Learn something new every day” might not resonate universally.

While it’s valuable to gather writing tips, it’s essential to develop a personalized writing workflow. Collecting advice without a coherent system can lead to confusion and overwhelm, akin to trying to decorate a tree with too many ornaments.

In summary, prioritize creating a writing workflow that resonates with you, rather than accumulating disjointed techniques.

For further insights, consider watching Ed Yong’s recent interview on “Journalism in the Time of Crisis”: