The future of science news rests on the guiding hand of experts

Harry Pettit, Senior Manager (Science News) at Cancer Research UK and former science reporter at The Sun and MailOnline.

I had a chat with a former colleague the other day that set alarm bells ringing. They’d just lost their job as a science reporter at a major UK newspaper and, after a decade in the industry, were set on a move away from journalism. The writing, they said, was on the wall for the science beat.

Their story may well be anecdotal, but it reflects a growing trend I’ve seen across the news industry since I left my own job in science journalism four years ago. Newsrooms are shrinking. Lost revenues as a result of declining paper sales and the collapse of the print advertising model have left the traditional media giants of old struggling, with job cuts rife across the industry.

Just last month, the BBC announced that up to 2,000 people would lose their jobs as a result of ‘significant financial pressures’, with the BBC News team among the hardest hit. Cuts have also been announced at the Metro, The I, CBS News and the Washington Post in recent months. When newsrooms lose staff, it is often the specialist reporters – considered a ‘luxury’ that complements the meat-and-drink general reporters – who go first. That means writers on the science, tech, transport, consumer affairs, environment, business and other crucial desks are most at risk.

The result is that specialist reporting is becoming a rarity. At a growing number of UK outlets – including my former colleague’s employer – the number of journalists working the science beat has dwindled to one or, in some cases, none at all. Those who’ve heroically clung to a job are being asked to pick up work on other desks. In October, for example, The Wall Street Journal fused its science and education teams as part of a restructure that resulted in a dozen reporters and editors losing their jobs.

The contraction of the beat is reshaping the landscape for reporting on research. One consequence is that general reporters – often under intense time pressure – are covering complex science stories. That serves to increase newsrooms’ reliance on external experts, university press offices, charity communications teams and online resources like the Cancer Research UK website, as well as the generative AI platforms that regurgitate copy from these sources.

With non-specialist reporters increasingly covering research stories, the risk of inaccuracies is higher than ever. Interpreting new research requires an ability to spot weaknesses in dense academic papers, a familiarity with statistics and uncertainty, and a firm grasp of what truly represents a scientific ‘breakthrough’.

In the absence of specialised reporting, newsrooms will more frequently rely on external forces to provide this sort of expertise. More so than ever, the future of science news rests on the voice of the expert. There is a blossoming opportunity for scientists and research communicators like me to support journalism by offering clear, accessible insight. Short expert commentary can help explain complex findings, challenge misinformation, and provide the nuance that science stories need.

As science journalism evolves, the door is open for science to evolve alongside it. Not just as a passive voice confined to academic journals, but as the guiding hand that ensures that members of the public get the compelling and accurate stories they deserve.