So far, we’ve established that I think #scicomm is a super important skill set to develop. Not just for journalists and scientists, but in fact, I think everyone should dabble in pop science writing. Why is that? 1/

I’ll start from my own experience: Doing a PhD was hard, not least because I doubted myself all the time, every single day. Writing helped. If you currently do science, you may find that writing about anyone’s science, not just your own, is good for mental health. 2/

Writing about science, mostly other people's science, helped me re-gain perspective and find meaning in science again. I am not alone here:
chronicle.com/article/Grad-S… 3/

I found that writing small, fun blog posts helped writing the dissertation seem manageable. I also found that writing about other people’s science was like being a fun aunt or a grandparent--short-term encounters with other people's babies that ended, mercifully. 4/

Making students write pop science is a great way to disabuse them of the notion that using big words makes them sound smart. Instead, your job is to reach people! Plus, grant writers’ workbooks actually suggest you write like a magazine writer, as this helps you find clarity. 5/

Also, science communication is not just a job--it's part of lots of jobs. I’ve learned a lot from my current job search about teaching, instructional design, medical & technical communications, & other jobs that call on you to adjust your explanations for different audiences. 6/

To me, good science communication has to be circumspect about real risks, real consequences, and real impacts that science has on society. But it also has to be compelling! Here, I’ll share my ten favorite pieces of pop science writing for sparking class discussion: 7/

(In no particular order) "The Donkey Kong Study article" by @edyong209 on work from @KordingLab theatlantic.com/science/archiv…

A clash between scientists and locals over a proposed mountaintop telescope, by @azeen buzzfeednews.com/article/azeeng…

A lesson in being prepared, from two @LIGO "cosmologists who faked it" in @NautilusMag nautil.us/issue/42/fakes…

This trolling study on chocolate and weight loss that turns out to actually be a lesson in p-hacking and predatory journals (and um, ethics) io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-milli…

"The white supremacists chugging milk article" by @amy_harmon nytimes.com/2018/10/17/us/…
and its companion piece nytimes.com/2018/10/18/ins…

A profile of @DrEugeniaCheng, math popularizer and baker, by @angier58 nytimes.com/2016/05/03/sci…

This letter from Francis Crick to James Watson, who is canceled, about why his book should be canceled profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBB…

This stunning speech by Indira Raman on being a woman in science, which I quibble with on the issue of merit but love for this: "the point is not whether I think like other scientists do; it’s that one scientist – me – thinks like I do" elifesciences.org/articles/21723

Mrs. Kelly's Monster, a throwback to 1978 that still slaps, in which Mrs. Kelly faces a monster...but what monster? jonfranklin.com/stories-2/mrs-…

And my favorite, O-Rings, which is about death and the Arctic and the Challenger disaster, somehow, and I'm told was scientist Sarah Stewart Johnson's first stab at writing for a general audience. books.google.com/books?id=FUyOB…

Those are my top ten models--all favorites for stimulating class discussion on science communication, some chosen for beauty, others for controversy. If you teach, would you teach these? If you're a student, what do you get out of these? Do you have any models to recommend?

PS: I meant to list only pop science writing, and this intention trails off a bit at the end. Let's call it top 10 models for science communicators...but also, let's go really off the rails with this 11th recommendation, the best episode of @novapbs ever: pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vide…