Sam Jones wears many hats. She's executive producer of the podcast Tiny Matters. She's also worked on other podcast and video projects. She's written about science for The Washington Post, New York Times, Scientific American, and more. She's also the current president of the D.C. Science Writers Association. Oh, and she got her Ph.D. in Biomedical Science at UCSD in 2018. Sam does good work and has to find her own way into science communication as an "alternative" to the more typical academic pathways laid out in grad school. In our conversation, we talk about her journey and what she's learned about doing scicomm her way.
You can find the rest of this summer's science communication podcast series here.
For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/
Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.
Sam Jones wears many hats. She's executive producer of the podcast Tiny Matters. She's also worked on other podcast and video projects. She's written about science for The Washington Post, New York Times, Scientific American, and more. She's also the current president of the D.C. Science Writers Association. Oh, and she got her Ph.D. in Biomedical Science at UCSD in 2018. Sam does good work and has to find her own way into science communication as an "alternative" to the more typical academic pathways laid out in grad school. In our conversation, we talk about her journey and what she's learned about doing scicomm her way.
You can find the rest of this summer's science communication podcast series here.
For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/
Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.
["Hot Psycom Summer Theme Song"]. Whoa, episode 3 of a new season of Hot Psycom Summer Alrighty, where does the time go? As you may know by now, this is a special series of conversations I've had with excellent science communicators about their stories and how they do what they do. Today, i'm excited to share my conversation with Sam Jones. I actually don't remember where I first came across Sam and her work, but it's been a couple years and I've admired her as a PhD-turned-scrappy science communicator.
Andy Luttrell:She finished her PhD in biomedical science in 2018, but has been hard at work conveying all sorts of science stories using all sorts of media.
Andy Luttrell:I thought she would have some great insight for academic scientists who want to dive more into public engagement. She's currently the executive producer and co-host of a great podcast called Tiny Matters, sponsored by the American Chemical Society, and she's also the current president of the DC Science Writers Association. In addition to all of this, she's written for outlets such as The New York Times, the Washington Post and Scientific American, and she's made YouTube videos for a channel run by the American Chemical Society and PBS. Between writing, video producing and podcasting, i would say she's doing the work, and I wanted to know more about how she got into all this and what she's learned about doing it. Well, the way that I was thinking of framing just opening up the door to talking about how you've gotten into what you're doing is to zoom back and think about yourself in high school, and I'm curious if the person you were then would be surprised by what you're doing now, or if you would go oh yeah, no, that checks out. That seems about right.
Sam Jones:I think that. So if I could go back and be my high school self and say, hey, in 15 years, this is what you're going to be doing, i don't know if I would have. I don't think, actually, that I would find it that surprising, but if I'd gone back to my college self I would have found it surprising. I think that's. What's weird about it is that I've always loved writing. I went through a phase in high school where I really thought I wanted to be a journalist and then I got to college and I fell in love with science even more. I always love science. My dad was a science teacher.
Sam Jones:I feel like I've just always been fascinated and weirded out by, and kind of scared by, the natural world a little bit, which we can talk about later, but that's really driven a lot of my interest, starting when I was super-duper young in terms of my interest in science. But I never thought about science, journalism. It was always sort of will I do science or will I be a writer? In high school I thought, oh, i want to write. And then in college I thought I really want to do research.
Sam Jones:And then many different things happened and ultimately I showed up here, but it was kind of a funny thing where, actually, a couple years into my PhD was when I started thinking more about quote, alternative careers, you know, beyond academia, beyond industry, and I realized how much I loved communicating science. And I remember a close family friend when I said, oh, i think I might want to write, she said something along the lines of well, yeah, why are you surprised by that? Haven't you always wanted to write? And so, yeah, so I think, just kind of depending on what stage of life I was in, this would seem like it was very fitting or that it was totally weird and out of left field.
Andy Luttrell:Did you have, in those earliest days, a sense of what doing science actually meant? Because what I think back to my interest in, i mean for me I come from mostly a social science perspective, but I was into all sorts of science stuff in high school, but all of that was via books. I was reading things that were showing up in magazines, things that were on TV, and so it's kind of like I don't know that I got what science was like. I think, in the eyes of the public, a lot of what we define as science is how we communicate that through these different media. So, yeah, what did that mean at the time for you?
Sam Jones:Yeah. So I mean, I think I always really liked science, but I think as a kid, my interpretation of science is that it's a kind of a lonely, lonely thing, And so I think that's why, even though I liked science, I never considered research until I was in college. Because I'm an extrovert, I like talking to people, I like not being alone all the time. But then, when I got to college and I started doing more hands-on work, communicating with actual scientists, learning about what they do and seeing that oftentimes it is very collaborative If you want to make it collaborative, you absolutely can make it that way That's when I thought, oh, actually, maybe I had this wrong. Like, maybe I do really want to be a researcher And so, yeah, so I definitely my view of what being a scientist meant shifted a lot. It made me interested enough to go and get a PhD, And while I was there I did see a lot of collaboration. I saw a lot of stuff that I loved, but ultimately I figured out that it wasn't for me.
Andy Luttrell:Yeah, it's funny because to me it's the writing that seems the most solitary, I know. My stereotype of a writer is someone who closes the door and says, don't bother me for three years.
Sam Jones:I know, i know It is really interesting. I think when I say solitary, i think very stereotypical scientists hovering above their lab bench, hunched over head down, headphones on, and I guess, like I'm hunched over a computer, head down, head down, a lot of times. But I do think that there's something about for me. So much of what I do as a writer is talk to people. You know, like, i think for me, the writing portion is actually far less of my time than the, you know, contacting people, asking them about what they do, going through research.
Sam Jones:Yeah, i think that there is a lot of alone time, but it's alone time in a different way, i don't know it's. There's opportunity for alone time and for more collaborative social time in both writing and in science. And I think I, yeah, i think I, probably, when I was younger, saw journalism as something that was more interactive than it actually is And I saw science as something that is far less interactive than it actually is. So I, yeah, i, you know, i think we, we have a. I think we just kind of. There are a lot of assumptions made about pretty much every career, i think, and I made a lot of assumptions about both of them and then ultimately found myself somewhere in between.
Andy Luttrell:So yeah, It's funny you say that that how social your reporting style is, cause that's a theme that I picked up to like there's a world where a science writer is someone who says I am an expert in translation and I will go read this research and then I will tell the mortals what it means and how to interpret it, whereas I got the sense that you're like writing a lot was. I mean, i mean, let's say, in the podcast, it's a lot of back and forth between the tracking and the interviews, and then in your writing too, there's a lot of like oh, you actually went out and it seems like you talked to these people right, it's not. Like there's the tricky version where you just like pull quote from the press release, which I've seen people do, but it seems like you're actually talking to people.
Sam Jones:You won't catch me doing that. You will not catch me doing that. I get all my own quotes.
Andy Luttrell:Yeah, is that like, was that a an approach that you sort of came to as a natural way to do it, or did it seem like, well, i guess I have to report this story. So what are the essential elements? Well, i have to talk to the person who did the work. I have to read the original work Like how much of this is you finding a road to your approach versus? this is actually more the norm that I'm giving it credit for.
Sam Jones:So you know what's weird is? this is a great question, and it's kind of making me laugh, because I don't. I don't quite know what the norm is. I think every writer has a slightly different approach that works for them, but also there could be a bunch of norms that I don't know about because I did not go to school for journalism. So I really just figured it out as I went and I figured out what kind of works for me in terms of like, okay, this is the general story I'm going to tell. I mean, it's, it's easier.
Sam Jones:So with something like Tiny Matters, which is the podcast that I exec produce, when I'm going after a story, a lot of times I go into it not knowing exactly what it's going to be or not, sometimes not even having a general understanding of what it's going to be, because there's a topic, there's something that I think is so interesting and so complex and I don't even know where to start, and so I am going into interviews with scientists in that field and I am just trying to figure out what they are excited about, because I feel like that's often a good place to start with topics that are just so overwhelming that you don't know where to begin. But let's say I'm writing a news story completely different format. You know you've got something that's going to be max 700 words. Sometimes I'm writing that's something that's closer to 300 words. You have very little that you can really include and you know what the story is generally going to be about, because you know it's about this new piece of research that is coming out. It's embargoed until X date and when that embargo lifts, then that information is available to the public and your story comes out with it. So I think, yeah, my approach is different depending on what I'm doing.
Sam Jones:Sometimes I'm just like really trying to feel out like what is happening in this field of science, like with tiny matters. But then, right, if I'm writing a news story, i go in and I like to ask. You know, there's certain types of questions I always like to ask because I like to gather quotes that are not just sort of a regurgitation of things that I could read in the paper. Right, like, yeah, i can read this paper. I, you know, i feel pretty confident being able to go through pretty dense academic material at this point. But that's not. There's no personality in that. Like 99.9% of the time I feel sure saying there is not personality in academic papers, but the people who are doing this, who have dedicated their lives to study this, sometimes like very, very niche thing, they are obsessed with it And I want that to come through.
Sam Jones:Like that is what I think actually adds to a story, because I can summarize the findings, but I wanna get a feeling for why this is interesting. Like, how does this move the field forward? Or maybe what are the issues with this kind of work? Like what else really needs to be done? How much can we really say about this? And so, like I know, i'm always going to interview people who have done the work. I'm always going to interview people who do similar work, but we're not involved with it at all, so that you have that outside perspective.
Sam Jones:And then I wanted to like ask things about why this is cool. Why is this exciting? Why should I care about it? Why should people reading this story care about it? Like, why do you love snakes so much? Why do you love spiders so much? Like, why do you think that this type of research in this field of health is so important? Like why you know why isn't there enough funding for this, or you know. So I think I yeah, this is a very long-winded answer to your question but, like I don't, i've figured out what works for me And I'm sure it will continue to evolve, because really I'm pretty early in this game because I, you know it has.
Sam Jones:Let's see what's today. Oh, okay, in like three days it will be exactly five years since I defended my PhD, and so I'm still very much, i would say, like an early career science journalist. So, even though I've been working and doing things that are related to this, but not directly, for many years, i'm still really figuring things out. And because I did not go to school for journalism or for science writing, yeah, i've just had to kind of like sometimes throw things against a wall and see what sticks.
Sam Jones:And there's ways in which you know, even a year and a half ago, the ways that I would do interviews and sort of frame them. I see how much additional work I created for myself by not really thinking through what I wanted to get out of the interview ahead of time. So I think I've learned a lot. But if you talk to someone who, like really went down, the more you know air quotes like standard trajectory for this kind of career. They might say to you oh well, they always tell us in school we're supposed to do X, y and Z, and like I've just kind of figured it out as I've like muddled my way through it, it's funny.
Andy Luttrell:If there's a theme to these science communication interviews, it's that I find patterns in what people do and then I present them to people and they go. I had no idea that I'd do that. Yeah, cause I think you're right. Well, you just sort of like you're muscling your way through it and you didn't write out your manifesto Like this is how I approach these predicaments. You just go like, oh, i just like I didn't realize. I built a little program in my brain that when I approach this topic it kicks off and that takes over.
Sam Jones:Yeah.
Andy Luttrell:You said there are a handful of go-to questions. What are?
Sam Jones:they Yeah.
Andy Luttrell:How do you start?
Sam Jones:Yeah. So a lot of times I'll kind of start out by I'll always ask the person who I'm interviewing, you know, what their research interests are and what they're working on, because I think that, let's say, it's an outside expert who's commenting on another study. I want to make it clear that this is a person who is actually providing, and able to provide valuable information, because they have a background in this, they have some expertise in this. So like that kind of question is just sort of like okay, let's set the baseline for why we're talking. And then from there I'm always asking you know, what did you find surprising about this study? Is there anything that really surprised you in this work? And sometimes there really is. And they say, yeah, i had no idea and this is actually going to change how I view this bit of my own research, and like that's really cool to make that connection across disciplines to some degree.
Sam Jones:And then I will sometimes ask, you know, depending on how you know like playful the interview kind of feels and how much they want to provide, i might say like let's say they study snakes, like snakes. Why snakes Like? why do you care so much about snakes? Were you a kid that loves snakes? Are you afraid of snakes? Like just you know those kinds of questions to get a sense of why they would dedicate this much of their life to a topic or to a species in particular. And a lot of times I try and ask that question a bit earlier on because they do think it kind of breaks up any anxiety or tension where people are overthinking what they're saying and how it's gonna be quoted and, you know, just bringing in those kind of fun little questions where they're able to maybe do think back to when they were nine and they were in their grandparents' yard and they were digging up stuff and you know that kind of thing. So those are kind of some of the questions that I try to incorporate And then you know, if I find something really surprising about the work, i might say, hey, this was really surprising to me.
Sam Jones:Is this normal? Is this something you're feel new about, or like what, or you know? another question is what did you know going into this, like how much work had been done in this before X experiment that you did? And I find that's actually really helpful. It's not necessarily gonna give you like a super fun and exciting answer, but it will ground you, because I think sometimes when you read about new research, there's a lot of overuse of, you know, groundbreaking or like field changing, and 99.9% of the time it's not.
Sam Jones:It's not Like there's too much overhype, like I think science is amazing, it's so cool on its own. We don't need to like use the word groundbreaking to talk about yet another protein that's been discovered that could be implicated in this type of cancer, like it might. It may well be groundbreaking, but we will not know that for years. So like let's calm down, let's like talk about what it is and how it holds potential, but it is not groundbreaking. So anyways, yeah, i like to kind of ask. I always like to ask, like where were things at before this? Why is this a step forward? And I think that always is helpful. And it also ends up grounding the reader and like how excited should I be about?
Andy Luttrell:this. Do you think that overuse of groundbreaking is on like? on whose shoulders is that fall? Is that on the reporter's shoulders? Is that on Everyone's? Yeah, the researchers themselves.
Sam Jones:I think scientists do it, i think public information officers at universities. So I guess, for people who are listening up, public information officer or PIO I think of as kind of being the liaison between the academic or the researcher at whatever institute and the journalists often, or the public. So they're sort of like very focused on their institutions, research that's going on. They're the ones that are writing press releases And then someone like me, a journalist, might pick up that press release and run with it And I see words like groundbreaking constantly And I think it's because you know it's like as a public information officer, their job is to really get that research out there from their specific university or institution. Like their job is to entice a journalist to write about it.
Sam Jones:But I think that there's a lot of overstating that And I'm not saying with everyone, but then I think there are also journalists who will do the same thing and they'll run with it And like maybe it's because the press release was so emphatic about how quote groundbreaking it was. Maybe it's because they're reading it and they want they're also trying to get readers excited about the story. So I think it falls on everyone. I really do And I think it all leads back to money because, as everything does, because you know, scientists in part are so excited about I mean excited about the work they do, because they care about it, but then often I think they overstate its significance, in part because they need to get funding, and the more that you can convince people that this research is important, the greater the chance that you are going to get funding to continue to do your research, to have a job, to employ others, and so I think it's a very tricky web and it just leads to this overstating of results And then that, in my opinion, leads to a lot of public distrust in science, because if you are reading all the time that we are making groundbreaking discoveries in cancer and many of your family members are continuing to die of cancer, you're gonna say, like are they lying?
Sam Jones:or like what is groundbreaking? So I don't know, i think that we need to hedge And I really try to never, in my opinion, like, never overstate the significance of a finding, like for me it's very important to, in everything that I write, also talk about how far things still need to go, or like, really, is this a step forward? Is it, are we inching forward? Like, what is the significance, because I think that it's a dangerous road to travel down And I feel like there's already so much public I don't even know if it's distrust but sort of like frustration and with science and scientists, and I'm not trying to add to that.
Andy Luttrell:It reminds me. I mean, i don't know if this is true across the board, but in my field especially, there's a prize put on novelty, like that's our like version of groundbreaking novel. This is a novel intervention. No one's ever seen anything like this before. That's the stuff that people want to fund and that people get excited about.
Andy Luttrell:But I think we agree that, like incremental science, like good science is incremental, right, careful steps forward actually get us a little closer to truth. And it strikes me that, yeah, like reporters, journalists, communicators have the opportunity to help people understand the value of that right To say like we're not like leaps and bounds past where we were a year ago, but it's an important step right And if we continue down this path, we can actually have these things. Because, yeah, i think the public conception of science can often be well, you're supposed to have answers and you have to keep having all these new answers. But I think you're right that you compare that to the tangible changes in our lives. You go hold on, but like, what is all this about? What are they doing out there.
Sam Jones:Yeah, yeah, and you know you can. There are absolutely findings that are groundbreaking, but I think saying this is groundbreaking and not explaining how it's groundbreaking that we discovered that this virus seems to cause this It's like that is groundbreaking, but what does that really mean? Like that's a big deal because it could inform the development of a vaccine, but that takes years, and so let's be more realistic about what that means. So like, yes, you could say that discovering a virus that causes a deadly disease, that is, in my opinion, that is absolutely groundbreaking. But what does it mean practically speaking?
Andy Luttrell:Yeah, and my sense is that a lot of the public interpretation is like I wanna see, like how are we gonna do? what are we gonna do with this, like right?
Sam Jones:now who's gonna be helped Like? why do I care?
Andy Luttrell:Yeah, which is not always the. Why do we care that scientists are pursuing right To them? groundbreaking means like, oh, this opens up the door to things we've never seen before. We had a paper years ago on Tylenol and how it blunts people's emotional reactivity to images, and this got really like you know my first experience, like interfacing with media outlets and things, and I think because and when I would tell people about it too, they're like oh, so I can just like take Tylenol and I like won't feel the emotion. You go no, that's not why it's cool, like it's not big enough that it's actually a thing that you should be doing in your own life. But like, don't, isn't it insane that this thing that we thought only does one thing actually operates on this totally different dimension? And you go that's a very theoretically innovative idea.
Sam Jones:But, practically.
Andy Luttrell:I mean, don't throw Tylenol down your throat whenever you're feeling blue. That's not what I want people to take away from it.
Sam Jones:Right, yeah, do you think?
Andy Luttrell:that your background in science gives you that appreciation. Because the other thing I was gonna ask, because you're sort of you have a hand in like the science writers association in your community and so like you sort of see who's out there doing this kind of work, does it strike you that it's a lot of posts like academically trained people, or mostly folks who are journalists, who are curious about science?
Sam Jones:So it is a huge mix and I think it's changing a lot. So I think that five years ago when I, you know, finished up my PhD and left academia to pursue science writing full time, i wouldn't say I wouldn't say I was like super unique, but kind of I was the only person in my 30 person cohort doing that like leaving UCSD. So you know there were plenty of people in academia all over the place doing something similar to me, but like within my network it was unique, i guess I could say. And I, yeah, so I did my PhD at UC San Diego. So I'm talking about my network in San Diego. But, to be fair, there also is a very small, growing but at the time very, very small science writing community In San Diego, especially compared to a place like Washington DC. So I would say over the last five years I've noticed more and more people from academia who are moving into science writing or science journalism And you know I don't have all the stats, i can't, but it's something that I've noticed and something that actually it was interesting like a week ago actually had a conversation about that with someone How there was someone, i think, at Professional Development Day who said, like what is the norm?
Sam Jones:And a bunch of us had to look around and think, like we, there isn't really one anymore because there are a lot of people coming from academia or something else. And yes, there are still a lot of people who are, you know, coming from general journalism or a Masters in Science writing or science journalism, who are then, you know, moving into the field And writing stories similar to what I'm writing. But yeah, it's, i think, making science. I guess I'll say science communication more generally, having that be the quote alternative career If you're an academic. I don't know, there's a lot of alternatives at this point. So I'm wondering when it's just going to be an option And it's not an alternative because, yeah, like I have science, so I I've also noticed that over the last few years I've had many, many more current academics who are thinking about leaving, who like science communication that will contact me.
Sam Jones:And so to the point where I have to like limit how many people I talk to, or I say like I'm sorry, i'm already speaking with three people this month and like can we talk next month or the month after, or something like that. I'm not going to be able to talk next month after or something, because I only have so much time to to like volunteer time to chat with people about this kind of stuff and kind of really go through like how I figured out that I didn't want to be in academia, but anyway, yeah, i'm rambling at this point, but I think it's a. It's a real mix. At least I can say that, for for the DC science writers that I've met, it's becoming even more of a mix, and when I joined as a member five years ago, i felt like I was surrounded by more people who would say, oh, i'm a journalist by training versus oh, i was a scientist by training and then moved into journalism.
Andy Luttrell:And I wonder like what is there an advantage? Is it just like, oh, just different people versus no, that training actually brings a unique and important perspective into this.
Sam Jones:Yeah. So I see the pros and cons. I think that sometimes I'll start with the cons first, as someone coming from an academic background, there's something really, really valuable about not maybe having an academic background, because I think sometimes you ask the questions that a more general audience wants to know. Those come to you faster. I've learned how to do that, but it wouldn't be my my initial set of questions if you, i guess, if I could, you know, rewind three, four years. I was coming at it from an academic perspective and not a journalistic, more general layman perspective, and that was a, i think, a hindrance to my reporting at first. And I'd have to sometimes like write a story and then realize, oh, this is still too detailed, or like there's a bit of jargon here that I didn't even realize was jargon And you know those kinds of things where I had to really check myself. And then I have to like go back to the person I had interviewed and say like can I get 10 more minutes of your time? I need to ask you a few more questions. And people were great about it, it was fine, but that's something I had to learn. On the flip side, i think, having a PhD, having an academic background, i have found that scientists are very willing to talk with me. I'm not saying that they're not willing to talk with journalists, but I've had many who have explicitly said I don't usually talk to journalists, but I see you have a PhD and ask what it's in, and when I tell them they're like okay, we can talk And so that has been an advantage, like that has been a very obvious advantage, i will say.
Sam Jones:I think being able to really dissect an academic paper, i think that's a huge advantage as well. Like I can, you know, even if it's a field like a lot of the stuff I'm writing about I don't have a background in, but I know how to plow through a method section, i know how to look at a discussion and critique their you know final conclusions And I know how to spot BS, i think a little bit better. Potentially, i don't know, You know, and for people I'm saying this kind of as, like a I'm in my first year, five years, i'm sure there are science journalists who are, who are, you know, 10 years in, who don't have any academic training, who are going through academic papers just as fast as I am, you know. So it's not like some people are just great at that.
Sam Jones:But I will say that, like, i think, starting off, that is less overwhelming to me because I have years of experience of having to do that for my job. I would, i guess, like if I were a science journalist without any sort of background in science, i would find an academic paper at least the first few years that I was in that field I would find that incredibly overwhelming, because I found that incredibly overwhelming like eight years ago. And so, yeah, i think that that's just that's something that I found. I will say also, i have never been as good at reading academic papers as I am now.
Sam Jones:When I was in grad school I was okay at it, but I think now it's like I know what to look for and I know how to pretty quickly read an academic paper and pull the pertinent information from it. I wish that I could have been this good at it when I, you know, seven or eight years ago, when I was like at the peak of grad school frustration. Yeah, i really like, i feel like I understand so much more because I've been forced to figure it out and to ask a lot of questions when I don't understand it, a lot of questions of the researchers who did the work, when I don't understand it.
Andy Luttrell:I could be misremembering, but I think last year Meryl Horn, one of the producers at Science Versus, said the same thing about like oh, i'm just like I'm so efficient at going through the scientific papers. Wouldn't that have been nice when I was doing my actual PhD.
Sam Jones:It would have. I'm so much saved time, my gosh, like so many like journal clubs during graduate school where I'd show up and be like I did not understand half of this and I spaced out halfway through like just you know that kind of stuff, Yeah for sure.
Andy Luttrell:I wonder too. So a skill that I think I bring to reading the original material would be identifying maybe something that is uniquely interesting about it in a way that other people might miss. And so, like I've had the experience of people who I'm interviewing be like, oh, like normally people miss why this was interesting, and I've had the experience talking about my own research for folks and being like oh, so that's what, to you, this paper was about. You know, there's like this, maybe seed of something of interest that it would be hard to grasp if you didn't spend all those years like training your brain to be like what is the cool thing about this? What is the useful thing about this? And you might be seizing on details that other people don't. Does that resonate at all? Or maybe not?
Sam Jones:Yeah, i mean, i think I don't know. it's hard, like I feel like this. it makes me wanna talk with other journalists who maybe have covered, you know, a similar study or, if it's a news story, like they've just covered it for a different outlet, to ask what did you find most striking when you read about this? Like, what was the thing that you really wanted to focus on? Because I do notice that, like I'll have a story, maybe I'll write a story. it'll come out in the New York Times and someone else wrote about it for the Atlantic And I read their story and you know the big take home messages are the same, they're all there, but the way they got into the story is different and maybe they've. I've highlighted one thing they didn't and they've highlighted one thing I haven't And I'd wanna know, like, why was that the thing that really stood out to you?
Andy Luttrell:It would be cool to process to like do that systematically And like yeah, look at what varies versus what is constant And like yeah, was it substantive or is it just aesthetic, like, oh, i just framed it differently versus oh no, they actually zeroed in on something that was substantively different here or there. So one thing that's similar to this conversation that I was gonna bring to you is the value and challenge of going from a hyper focused PhD perspective to an enormously generalized science reporting perspective. So I looked at your most recent stuff in the last month. The last two episodes of Tiny Matters were about computer chips and life beyond earth, and the last two, i think, written pieces that you had were about perceived fatigue fatigue for the Washington Post and locust pheromones for new scientists And to me those are for absolutely different Like just, i would never put them in the same box together, no, no.
Andy Luttrell:And yet you've had to have some authoritative voice about all four of them. So what are the like? in what ways is that helpful to you? Because I could imagine that you sort of bring, like you said, the perspective of someone who's completely brand new to each of those things.
Sam Jones:Yeah.
Andy Luttrell:Versus. In what ways is that challenging to constantly having to start from zero on a topic?
Sam Jones:Yeah, so I will say, like I love that about my job, just starting off by saying that I'm someone who it makes so much sense now that I'm in science journalism and that I cover so many different topics, because I have always loved so many different topics in science. And it is really hard if you ask me, like, what is your favorite stuff? I mean I guess I could say things that are related to human health, but like, also I love a lot of things that have nothing to do with humans, right? Like I think, yeah, so, yeah. So this doesn't answer your question at all, but like I love that I am able to cover such a range and part of why, like Tiny Matters the podcast I exec produce it's called Tiny Matters because it's about tiny things in our world that matter, that have a big impact, and so that can be like pretty much anything, and that is because I like talking about everything related to science. So, yeah, so I will say the tricky part is, or what you said about you know, because I am not an expert in all of these things, it does allow me to have sort of a fresh perspective, a layman's perspective, to ask some of those questions that people out there might wanna know about a topic like locust, pheromones, or what does it mean for someone to be physically fatigued, versus to perceive how fatigued they feel Like? I don't have background in either of those things, so I would say from an advantageous standpoint you know I'm able to ask questions that, yeah, that the general public might wanna know.
Sam Jones:I think switching between topics although, like I mentioned, it's very fun because I do love so many different topics in science It's hard like sometimes, just kind of like, if I have, you know, two episodes going for Tiny Matters on really different things and then I also am throwing in some weird animal story on top of that, it can be tricky switching between them. Just kind of like, every time you stop and move to the other thing, you have to kind of take a moment to like compose yourself, remind yourself of the things you already learned about that topic. Okay, where am I starting? What do I still need to get into? Who do I need to contact? So I think that's it's really an organizational issue And I think I have learned.
Sam Jones:I've always been someone who's quite organized and I've learned how to be hyper organized, because otherwise I don't think that I could do the number of things that I'm doing. I guess in such a range of topics I think I would lose my mind. So I've found ways where I really like I have certain things that I do to really stay organized. Like when I take on a topic, i'm like, okay, this is the sequence of events that are going to get me to a final product, and like where am I at for each one? And I really try and sort of like block off time to work on that one thing. So if every day I was bopping around to five different things, i would get nothing done. And so really figuring out like, okay, how can I work my schedules, that I have this uninterrupted focus time on this topic before I switch over, and so I think that's I had to learn how to do that best.
Andy Luttrell:And it's not only topic switching too, it's modality switching. So the other thing Oh, it's really different.
Sam Jones:Yeah, sorry, i should say that too, like sometimes and sometimes I'll if I'm writing like a quick script for like a TikTok or something. So that's something I've been starting to do a bit now, not on my own TikTok, doing it for another TikTok, but like that's something where I have to like, writing a one minute TikTok versus a 4,500 word podcast script, versus a 300 to 700 word news story is so different. And then when you write, if you are writing a news story for different news outlets, there are different, just like, essentially there are different rules that each one had. Like, you know, when you're referring to a scientist, is it in the past or is it in the present? And is this a publication that is also in the UK? because you are going to spell flavor, oh you are not.
Sam Jones:Or Like, just like little things or bigger things and sort of structural things. And what's the tone? Is it kind of silly Or is this a really serious thing about human health? And you know, i think, yeah, sorry I'm getting off track, but like, yeah, there's a lot of stuff. You're right, it's not just a time organization thing, it's being able to switch between tone and cadence and a lot of other factors I guess in between those things.
Andy Luttrell:Is that something that you enjoy, or do you go? God, I wish I could just do one thing.
Sam Jones:No, no, i get bored really easily. I like it, i do. I mean, some days it's like depending on, so I, you know, i should say like my primary role, like is as the executive producer of a podcast, so the other stuff I'm doing is as a freelancer, but my full-time position is as the executive producer of Tiny Matters And so that is my priority. But then when I sprinkle in the freelance work I'm doing, i really like it because I think it keeps me fresh in my delivery. Like I think that I get a little bit stale.
Sam Jones:I've noticed that when I'm just like going podcast, episode after episode after episode, and I haven't done anything else in terms of freelance work for a bit, i noticed that like it gets a little bit dry and formulaic And I think kind of forcing myself I say forcing myself like I enjoy it, but sort of forcing myself out of that comfort zone is really good because it kind of it spices things up, i don't know like it's.
Sam Jones:I really think that it's helpful, it gets my brain out of its little rut. But yeah, there are definitely times where I'm like, oh geez, all these deadlines are falling at the exact same time And within 48 hours I'm, you know, delivering a bunch of things with really different you know I'm taking a really different tone with all of them. And then I'm going back and forth on edits and I'm reminding myself, like okay, so this is the style for this and this is the style for this. And like okay, wait, i need to add this in. Like, that kind of stuff is just, sometimes it's a little bit overwhelming, but I think staying organized, having a clear understanding of what the ultimate deliverable is in each case, makes a big difference.
Andy Luttrell:At that point. So you're doing all these. It's like all over the place. Is there anything keeping you from crossing that line? of science as the unifying theme, like someone could say. Well, at this point, why not also take on different kinds of stories completely? Do you find that there's still a centerpiece that science holds for you? Or are you at a point where you go it's writing and producing and communicating, and that could be about anything?
Sam Jones:I am not against writing about other things, potentially, but I think for me there's always going to be a tie back to science. That is also just. It's so general, it's so, so, so general. But I think there always will be a tie back to science for me, because I love history. I love reading about and hearing. I read so much fiction. I read a lot of nonfiction, but I read so much fiction as well. I also read or listen to history podcasts, true crime stuff. I listen to everything and I read everything.
Sam Jones:For the most part, i think I'm just a curious person, but when it comes to really writing about things and putting in a lot of time, i think the things that I care about most are related to science. I think it'll always come back to that. It's funny. I'm like I could listen to something about history or read something related to a world war or some case that needs to be solved. My brain would always go back to science. I would somehow always have a question about what I'm listening to or reading that relates to science. I think that's just where I go. It's where I've trended since I was a young kid. I don't see that changing, but it doesn't mean that I don't love the other stuff. It's just I don't think I'm ever going to feel passionate enough about being the one who explains it to the public, whereas with science, i do feel really passionate about that because I feel like I have the training and understanding to try and do that.
Sam Jones:I also think that I've learned throughout my PhD and throughout the last five years that there's a lot I don't know. I'm okay with that because I'm working on and I'm pretty good at but I'm always working on asking good questions of the people who do understand it. I feel very comfortable saying I don't understand this at all. Can you help me with this? Can you explain this to me? Then? that way I feel like I'm really able to actually provide good, accurate information to lay people. But yeah, i don't know. I think it always comes back to science for me. I think it's just who I am.
Andy Luttrell:You can't run away from who you are. I wanted to, as we wrap up, get a little bit of background on the podcast on Tiny Matters, so if you could give a little sense of where that came from. You mentioned what the premise is. Was that set by you or was that handed down? What was the origin story of this thing that you spend all this time on?
Sam Jones:Yeah, it was not handed down. I guess it would have been now, not quite two years ago. Tiny Matters, we had our trailer come out in December 2021, but we really kicked things off in 2022. We're about not quite, but nearing a year and a half. I would say around this time or a little bit later in 2021, i was working with the American Chemical Society, which is a big scientific society, similar to AAAS for people who know AAAS, but for chemists, i was working on an American Chemical Society, pbs Digital Studios YouTube series called Reactions. It's about chemistry and everyday life Again, huge range of topics, although everything related back to chemistry because it's the American Chemical Society.
Sam Jones:Again, it was a combination of different sciences and history and very, very fun to work on. I was feeling ready for the next thing. The American Chemical Society had been considering launching a new podcast. I was working on a podcast that we were thinking about like Sunsetting. It was small. It was a tiny amount of my time compared to all the video writing and hosting that I was doing. It just did not get the love that it probably deserved, but it also was something that was started before I showed up. The concept wasn't quite there. It was a great learning experience and I'm proud of the episodes, but I cannot listen to them because I was figuring it all out.
Sam Jones:The executive producer of the PBS American Chemical Society YouTube series his name is George Zydan. He was like look, i think this would be a really cool thing to try and do. Do a podcast, what do you think? We started talking about it. I came up with a bunch of different names and concepts behind the podcast The difference between the American Chemical Society.
Sam Jones:There's another podcast that it actually comes out of, chemical and Engineering News, which is the editorially independent magazine of the American Chemical Society. It's kind of like Science Magazine is to AAAS. They have a podcast called Stereochemistry and it's very much geared toward chemists I was going to say hardcore chemists, but it's like you have to have at least I think, an undergraduate level chemistry understanding or late high school, early undergraduate chemistry understanding. You should really be able to understand a lot of the content That's really geared towards chemists. My idea was that we would launch a podcast that was geared toward a much more general audience. We do not expect anyone listening to episodes to have beyond a high school level education in science, which I think is really important because that's really the audience that I want to reach. George and I and some of other people within the productions group at the American Chemical Society workshopped some ideas and names and ultimately we landed on Tiny Matters. I can't remember. Honestly, my husband might have suggested that name initially. I don't know. I should give him credit.
Sam Jones:He suggested part of it and then I think we combined it with something else. I can't remember. There was a few names in the mix, but we landed on Tiny Matters and then I launched it as exec producer. That was December 2022. The idea was I want to cover a huge range of topics. I want them to be things that have societal relevance. A lot of times there's a history component. I want to bring personal stories in where we can. I really wanted to be something that it's narrative driven for the most part. Sometimes we'll have episodes that are a bit more conversational and we're still depending on the episode. We're trying to see what sticks for our audience and what they like more. Ideally, we have a bit of it's narrative driven, with me and my co-host, but then we bring in bits of conversations that we have with experts and cover a huge range of topics. It's been great. We've seen a lot of steady growth in terms of listenership. Yeah, it's been. it's been a lot of fun, right.
Andy Luttrell:Okay, i don't want to take any more of your time away, but this has been super fun. And I really appreciate you taking the time to talk about all this stuff.
Sam Jones:Yeah, thank you for having me. This is really fun.
Andy Luttrell:Thank you to Sam Jones for taking the time to talk about her story and what she's learned about science communication. Check out the episode webpage for a link to Sam's site and to her great podcast, tiny matters, which she co-hosts with Dubokie checker Vardy. This series on science communication is a special presentation of my podcast opinion science, a show about the science of our opinions, where they come from and how they change. You can subscribe any old place where they have podcasts your apples, your Spotify, your, i think, open casts is one of them And be sure to check out opinion science podcastcom for links and pictures and all sorts of things, including a way to kick a few bucks into the show's tip jar to help keep this operation rolling. And whoever you are, i hope you're enjoying this.
Andy Luttrell:I'd love for this summer series to reach folks with a keen interest in science communication, so please tell people about it. Post online, email a friend, tell your dog groomer. I don't know anyone who would be interested in boosting their own communication skills, especially scientists who would like to reach beyond academia and journalists who are curious about science. Okie doke, thank you so much for listening. Come back next week for more hot psychom summer.
Siri Carpenter:I just read this story by Malcolm Gladwell about ketchup in the New Yorker And I just felt like I don't get like how do you approach a story like that? Like I had this idea that if I could just talk to Malcolm Gladwell about how he got the idea for that story and then what was the first thing that he did that I would like understand how to do it all, it would solve all my problems. So I emailed him and then, to my surprise, he wrote. He did write back and he said, sure, he would talk with me about that story And and he told me about the origins of that story.
Siri Carpenter:And you know, that conversation kind of extended from there to talking about the ins and outs of being a science writer and his experiences and how he finds stories and so on. It was great And it just kind of left me with this feeling like I want to do more of this, like talk, and I want to talk to more people about their stories. And it was only as we kind of got underway working on that that we thought maybe these are really interesting, maybe some other people would want to read these interviews as well, maybe we should like put them on a website somewhere. I'm Siri Carpenter and I'm a science journalist and editor, and I'm co-founder and editor in chief of the Open Notebook, which is a nonprofit organization that helps science journalists improve their skills.