I’m not sure that I know.  Let me start with that.

I think it’s too easy – and not accurate – to say that “science writing” equals “writing about science.”  I think it’s more than that.  If “science writing” is seen as part of the practice of science, it’s about HOW you write as much as it’s about WHAT you write about.

So, HOW do you “write science”?

We should point out that we have to accept that writing is a part of the discipline of science.  “Doing science,” in other words, involves writing.  In what way, you ask?  Writing is part of the . . . SCIENTIFIC METHOD!

We all love that, don’t we?

I have to point out, as I have before, that I don’t believe in a rigorous, recipe-like method that must occur in a certain order with certain steps.  I don’t think that there is a single “scientific method.”  I think if you ask a “real” scientist (wow, lots of quotes this time), that person will tell you that the method of science boils down to observation, experiment, analysis, and some kind of iteration.  Not necessarily in that order.  I like to point out that most scientists – even the stodgiest and most serious – will admit that hypotheses, insight, the patterns that lead to theories and laws, the real MAGIC of science, in other words, comes from imagination, creativity, and divergent thinking – not hard empirical data.  Richard Feynman admits this, at least.  (More about this guy later, I’m sure.)

We must also point out that science is collegial, that scientists share their thinking with each other.  That means they have to communicate.  And being busy people, like so many of us, they must be efficient about it.  While it might be interesting if a scientist is, for example, a huge One Direction fan or really excited about the Cleveland Browns, those things might not help advance the work of other scientists.

So, “science writing” has to be useful to other scientists.

What does that mean?  It means that, at some point, “science writing” should present hypotheses, theories, or analysis.  Something that explains, or guesses, why something else happens.  And there should be reasons for it.

Why?  Scientists are curious and skeptical.  They want to understand causes and effects for phenomena.  And they want to be sure.  Theories or explanations that only work one time in one person’s lab are not useful.  The goal, ultimately, is prediction.  They want the power to predict the future, given certain environmental factors.

Let’s give an example.  If you pick up a rock, then drop it, you know what will happen.  You’ve discovered the law of gravity!  You can predict that the next time you do that, the same thing will happen.  That’s useful.

I think this is enough to start with.  Science writing equals some kind of explanation, and some kind of evidence for it.