2 months
2 weeks ago

We spoke to Mark Henderson, Science Editor of The Times. We asked him about his job as a science journalist and the importance of getting the story right.

Why do you think it is important to share science with the public?
Science is important to so many aspects of our lives now. You can see that in issues such as climate change and in healthcare, but also in the economy too – the fact that so much of the growth that we generate in this country ultimately derives from scientific advances. I think it’s very important that people understand that. I also think it’s important that people understand how science works, how discoveries are made, how we know what’s right and what’s wrong and what we can trust.

What do you love about communicating science?
First of all, the variety, the fact that there is so much exciting scientific endeavour going on – from the fruits of getting the genome sequence which is phenomenally exciting, to the Large Hadron Collider and space exploration. If you get bored covering science, something is wrong. I also love the rigour of science, the fact that ideas stand and fall on evidence rather than hearsay and assertion. The other great thing of course about writing for The Times about science is the way that you can ring up experts all over the world. They give you time and a personal tutorial on something really exciting. And that’s from one of the top names in the field. That’s pretty fun.

How did you go from a history degree to Science Editor for The Times?
I worked on The Times for about 4 years doing general reporting and writing jobs. Then I started a science job about 10 years ago. I don’t think it’s necessarily a disadvantage not to have a science degree. Science is so broad that if you’ve got a degree in particle physics and you’re being asked to write about molecular biology, you are not necessarily any better off. The key thing though is that you have to be able to understand the method of science – how science works – and I think if you can do that, then your actual academic background is less important.

Do you remember your first encounter with science?
I wrote quite a lot of leaders about global warming and GM crops when I did a spell as a leader writer. There is a learning curve though. I remember in my first couple of months on the job, I wrote a story about a cancer breakthrough almost every week because I was taking all these press releases at face value. And then I rapidly learned that actually most of these cancer cures that were being described were for mice and weren’t going to get anywhere near humans. You learn to be more sceptical.