The problem of specialization in news reporting is enormously complex and often confusing, with arguments centering around how much expertise the specialized reporter should have and how he should acquire it. In perhaps no other area is the complexity and confusion greater or more perplexing than in science writing. Strengths and weaknesses of specialized training for science writing were explored in a mail survey of 152 newspaper, magazine, and free lance science writers in the United States and Canada. Advantages and disadvantages of specialized training were identified through analysis of comments which many science writers made on the questionnaires they returned. Some recommendations for potential science writers are presented.

Problem areas in science news coverage were identified as part of a survey of the accuracy of science news reporting in newspapers. Mail questionnaires and newspaper clippings were sent to the major sources cited in the articles. Common problem areas in science writing were identified by examining the comments scientists made on the questionnaires. Specifically, seven problem areas are discussed here: finding angles, writing leads, quoting accurately, using language correctly, interpreting technical conclusions properly, avoiding sensationalism, and using the words “cure” and “breakthrough.”