Course outline
Module 1
Module 1: Introduction to Science Journalism
Introduction to Science Journalism
Knowledge check
Q1. What is the primary role of a science journalist?
- A. To publish original laboratory research before peer review
- B. To translate complex scientific findings into accurate, accessible reporting for the public
- C. To replace scientists as the main authors of research papers
- D. To promote specific products or treatments sponsored by industry
Q2. Why is it important for science journalists to contact independent experts when reporting on a new study?
- A. Independent experts can guarantee that the study's findings are true
- B. Independent experts can provide context and assess the study's strengths and limitations
- C. Independent experts are required by law before any science story is published
- D. Independent experts can rewrite the study so it is easier to read
Q3. Which of the following best describes a 'preprint'?
- A. A press release written by a university's communications office
- B. A research paper shared publicly before it has undergone formal peer review
- C. A summary of a study published in a major newspaper
- D. A textbook chapter that introduces a scientific topic
Q4. A study finds that people who drink coffee have lower rates of a certain disease. What is the most important caution a science journalist should convey?
- A. The study proves coffee prevents the disease
- B. The study shows only an association, which does not establish that coffee causes the outcome
- C. The study is unreliable because coffee is a common beverage
- D. The study should be ignored because it was funded by a coffee company
Q5. What does it mean when a science story 'hedges' its claims?
- A. It removes all mention of the study's methods to save space
- B. It uses qualifying language to reflect uncertainty and the limits of the evidence
- C. It presents the findings as settled fact to attract more readers
- D. It compares the study to unrelated news events to increase interest
Module 2
Module 2: Understanding Scientific Research
Understanding Scientific Research
Knowledge check
Q1. Which type of study is best suited for establishing that one factor causes a change in another?
- A. Case study
- B. Randomized controlled trial ✓
- C. Cross-sectional survey
- D. Literature review
Why: Randomized controlled trials assign participants at random to groups, which helps isolate the effect of the intervention and supports causal conclusions, unlike observational designs that can only show association.
Q2. A study finds that people who drink coffee have lower rates of heart disease. What is the most important caution a journalist should note?
- A. The sample size must be exactly 1,000 people
- B. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation; other factors may explain the link ✓
- C. The study must have been published in a famous journal
- D. The results are automatically wrong because coffee is a common drink
Why: Observational studies can reveal associations, but confounding variables such as lifestyle, income, or diet may explain the relationship. Journalists should avoid claiming coffee causes better heart health from correlational data alone.
Q3. What does peer review mean in the context of scientific publishing?
- A. The authors choose their own reviewers to approve the paper
- B. Independent experts in the same field evaluate the research before publication ✓
- C. The public votes on whether a study is accurate
- D. The journal editor rewrites the findings for clarity
Why: Peer review is a process where qualified experts assess a manuscript's methods, analysis, and conclusions before it is accepted. It is a quality check, though it does not guarantee the findings are correct.
Q4. What is a p-value in a typical scientific study?
- A. The probability that the research hypothesis is true
- B. The probability of obtaining results at least as extreme as observed if the null hypothesis were true ✓
- C. The percentage of participants who experienced side effects
- D. The size of the effect measured in the study
Why: A p-value measures how surprising the data would be under the assumption of no real effect. It does not tell you the probability that a hypothesis is true or how large or important an effect is.
Q5. Why is a single study generally not enough to establish a scientific consensus?
- A. Single studies are always fraudulent
- B. Results can vary due to chance, methods, and sample differences, so replication across studies is needed ✓
- C. Only government agencies are allowed to confirm findings
- D. Scientists are required to publish at least ten studies on every topic
Why: Individual studies can produce misleading results due to random variation, design limitations, or unusual samples. Replication and systematic reviews across many studies give more reliable evidence.
Module 3
Module 3: Writing for Different Audiences
Writing for Different Audiences
Knowledge check
Q1. When writing a science story for a general audience, what is the most important first step?
- A. Include as many technical terms as possible to show expertise
- B. Identify the core message and explain why it matters to everyday readers ✓
- C. Copy the wording of the original research paper closely
- D. Start with the methodology section to establish credibility
Why: General audiences need to know why a finding matters to them. Leading with the core message and its relevance keeps readers engaged, while technical detail can follow as needed.
Q2. Which approach best serves a specialist audience of practicing scientists reading a science news piece?
- A. Omitting all numerical data to keep the piece simple
- B. Providing precise figures, sample sizes, and statistical context ✓
- C. Replacing technical terms with everyday analogies only
- D. Summarizing findings in a single sentence without context
Why: Specialists expect rigor. Precise figures, sample sizes, and statistical context let them judge the strength of the evidence, which is what they care about most.
Q3. A journalist wants to explain a complex gene-editing study to high school students. Which strategy is most effective?
- A. Using a relatable analogy, such as comparing DNA to a instruction manual, and defining key terms plainly ✓
- B. Quoting the abstract verbatim so nothing is lost in translation
- C. Assuming students already know the background and skipping definitions
- D. Focusing exclusively on the ethical debate without explaining the science
Why: Analogies and plain definitions make unfamiliar concepts accessible to learners without prior background, while keeping the science accurate.
Q4. Why should a science writer avoid overstating the certainty of a single new study?
- A. Single studies are never published in reputable journals
- B. Science progresses through replication and accumulated evidence, so one study is rarely definitive ✓
- C. Editors prohibit words like 'proves' in every article
- D. Readers cannot understand probabilistic language at all
Why: Scientific knowledge builds gradually through replication and consensus. Presenting one study as settled fact misrepresents how science works and can mislead audiences.
Q5. When adapting a story for policymakers rather than the general public, what should the writer emphasize?
- A. Detailed laboratory procedures and equipment specifications
- B. Practical implications, costs, risks, and options for decision-making ✓
- C. The historical development of the field over the past century
- D. Personal anecdotes from the researchers involved
Why: Policymakers need to act on information, so the most useful content addresses implications, tradeoffs, costs, and the decisions the findings might inform.
Module 4
Module 4: Ethics in Science Reporting
Ethics in Science Reporting
Knowledge check
Q1. Which of the following is the most important ethical principle when reporting on a scientific study?
- A. Emphasizing the most dramatic finding to attract readers
- B. Accurately representing the study's findings, limitations, and level of certainty
- C. Waiting until the study has been widely adopted in practice before reporting it
- D. Presenting the researchers' conclusions without independent verification
Q2. A journalist reports that a new drug 'cures cancer' based on results from a study in mice. What is the main ethical problem with this headline?
- A. The headline is too short to contain enough information
- B. Mouse studies rarely produce results that apply to humans, and the headline overstates the findings
- C. Journalists should never report on cancer research
- D. The drug's name was not included in the headline
Q3. What is a conflict of interest in science reporting, and why should it be disclosed?
- A. A disagreement between two journalists over story angles, which should be resolved privately
- B. A financial or professional relationship that could bias a researcher or source, which readers need to know to judge credibility
- C. A dispute between editors and reporters about word count, which does not affect readers
- D. A scientist's personal opinion on a topic, which should always be omitted from coverage
Q4. Why is it ethically important for science journalists to seek out independent experts for comment on a study?
- A. To fill space in the article with quotes from many people
- B. To provide outside perspective and test the study's claims rather than relying solely on the authors' framing
- C. Because editors require at least three quotes in every article
- D. To delay publication until a consensus is reached among all scientists
Q5. A study has not yet been peer reviewed. How should a responsible journalist handle reporting on it?
- A. Report it as established fact because the researchers are reputable
- B. Avoid mentioning that it is unreviewed so readers are not discouraged
- C. Clearly state that the findings are preliminary and have not yet been peer reviewed
- D. Refuse to cover any research that is not published in a major journal
Module 5
Module 5: Interviewing Scientists and Researchers
Interviewing Scientists and Researchers
Knowledge check
Q1. What is the most important first step before interviewing a scientist about their research?
- A. Asking the scientist to send you their full manuscript
- B. Reading the relevant papers and understanding the basic context of their work ✓
- C. Preparing a list of questions that praise their findings
- D. Contacting the scientist's university press office only
Why: Reading the relevant papers and understanding the context lets you ask informed, precise questions and avoids wasting the scientist's time on basics you could have looked up yourself.
Q2. Which type of question is most useful for drawing out a clear explanation from a researcher?
- A. Closed yes-or-no questions such as 'Is this a breakthrough?'
- B. Open-ended questions such as 'How did you arrive at this conclusion?' ✓
- C. Leading questions such as 'Wouldn't you agree this changes everything?'
- D. Multiple-choice questions offering only two answers
Why: Open-ended questions invite detailed explanations of methods, reasoning, and uncertainty, which gives journalists richer material than short yes-or-no answers or leading questions that push a predetermined angle.
Q3. Why should a science journalist ask a researcher about the limitations of their study?
- A. To make the researcher look bad in the published article
- B. Because every study has limitations, and reporting them gives readers an accurate picture ✓
- C. Because editors require a limitations quote in every science story
- D. To avoid having to explain the results in detail
Why: Every study has limitations such as sample size, scope, or confounding factors. Asking about them helps readers understand how much confidence the findings deserve and prevents overstated coverage.
Q4. If a researcher uses a technical term you do not understand during an interview, what should you do?
- A. Nod and look it up later so the interview keeps moving
- B. Guess its meaning and use it in your article
- C. Politely ask them to explain it in plain language ✓
- D. Skip it and leave it out of your notes entirely
Why: Asking for a plain-language explanation ensures accuracy and shows you are engaged. Guessing risks misreporting, and skipping the term may cause you to lose a key part of the finding.
Q5. After an interview, what is a good practice regarding quotes from the scientist?
- A. Send the scientist a full draft of the article for their approval before publication
- B. Read back quotes for accuracy if you are unsure, while keeping editorial control of the story ✓
- C. Never verify quotes because it wastes time
- D. Rewrite their quotes entirely so they sound more exciting
Why: Checking quotes for accuracy is good practice and builds trust, but journalists should retain editorial independence rather than handing over approval of the full article. Rewriting quotes to sound more exciting misrepresents the source.
Module 6
Module 6: Visual Storytelling in Science
Visual Storytelling in Science
Knowledge check
Q1. Which of the following is the most important reason to label the axes of a chart clearly in science journalism?
- A. To make the chart look more professional and decorative
- B. So readers can understand what is measured and in what units ✓
- C. To fill empty space around the graphic
- D. To make the chart easier to print in black and white
Why: Clear axis labels with units tell readers what the data represents. Without them, a chart can be misread or misleading even if the data itself is accurate.
Q2. A line chart shows a steep rise in a variable over a period of two years. What is a common way a journalist could mislead readers with this chart?
- A. By using a consistent time scale on the horizontal axis
- B. By citing the original data source
- C. By starting the vertical axis at a value far above zero, exaggerating small changes ✓
- D. By including a legend that explains the colors
Why: A truncated y-axis can make small differences look dramatic. Journalists should consider whether a zero baseline is appropriate and make the scale transparent.
Q3. Which visual is generally best suited for showing how a whole is divided into parts, such as the share of energy sources in a country's electricity mix?
- A. A scatter plot
- B. A histogram
- C. A pie chart or stacked bar chart ✓
- D. A line graph tracking daily temperatures
Why: Pie charts and stacked bars are designed to show parts of a whole. Scatter plots and histograms show relationships or distributions, and line graphs show change over time.
Q4. What does a 'caption' contribute to a science graphic in a news article?
- A. It replaces the need for any data in the article text
- B. It explains what the reader is looking at, what the key takeaway is, and where the data came from ✓
- C. It is only needed if the image is in color
- D. It hides uncertainty so the story reads more simply
Why: A good caption gives context, highlights the main message, and credits the data source. It helps readers interpret the visual accurately without guessing.
Q5. When illustrating a study's findings with an image, why should a science journalist avoid showing a photo that implies a causal link not established by the research?
- A. Because photos are always less accurate than charts
- B. Because readers remember images more than text, so an implied causal link can persist even after a correction in the text ✓
- C. Because copyright law prohibits photos in science stories
- D. Because photos take too long to load on mobile devices
Why: Visuals are powerful and memorable, so misleading imagery can shape readers' beliefs even when the written text is careful. Journalists should choose images that accurately reflect the evidence.
Module 7
Module 7: Fact-Checking and Verification Techniques
Fact-Checking and Verification Techniques
Knowledge check
Q1. Which of the following is the most reliable first step when verifying a claim in a science news story?
- A. Repeat the claim on social media to see if others confirm it
- B. Trace the claim back to the original peer-reviewed study or primary source ✓
- C. Ask a friend whether the claim sounds plausible
- D. Check how many times the story has been shared
Why: Good verification starts with the primary source. Secondary coverage often simplifies, exaggerates, or misreports findings, so going back to the original study lets you check what was actually measured and concluded.
Q2. A press release says a new study 'proves' that a supplement cures anxiety. What is the best response?
- A. Accept it, since press releases come from the researchers themselves
- B. Report it as proven, since a study was conducted
- C. Recognize that single studies rarely 'prove' anything and look for sample size, control groups, and whether the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal ✓
- D. Assume the supplement is harmful because of the word 'proves'
Why: Science rarely proves things outright, and a single study is one piece of evidence. Checking the design, sample size, controls, and peer-review status helps judge how strong the claim really is.
Q3. What does a sample size of 12 participants in a human study most likely mean for a journalist?
- A. The results are definitively conclusive
- B. The results may be preliminary and could be unreliable or not generalizable ✓
- C. The study is automatically fraudulent
- D. The sample size is irrelevant to the findings
Why: Small samples produce noisy results that are more likely to show false or exaggerated effects. A careful journalist notes the limitation rather than presenting the findings as settled.
Q4. Which phrase in a news article most suggests that a correlation is being presented as causation?
- A. 'The study was published in Nature'
- B. 'Researchers measured levels of X in participants'
- C. 'Eating chocolate leads to better memory' ✓
- D. 'The data were collected over three years'
Why: Words like 'leads to' or 'causes' imply a cause-and-effect relationship. Observational studies often show only that two things are associated, so causal language should be checked against the study design.
Q5. Why should a journalist check whether a study has been replicated?
- A. Replication is required by law before any study can be reported
- B. A single result may be due to chance or error, and independent replication increases confidence in the finding ✓
- C. Replicated studies are always more accurate than original ones
- D. Replication only matters for studies published in the same year
Why: Independent researchers repeating a study and getting similar results is a key check against chance findings, methodological flaws, or bias. Unreplicated findings, especially surprising ones, warrant cautious reporting.