Skip to content

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.


The (Important) Difference Between SciComm and Science Journalism

By Anna Funk

It was embarrassingly recent that I realized that I had been conflating science communication (#SciComm) and science journalism in my mind, and that’s it’s quite helpful to know the difference. If you’re here, you must think it will be helpful, too! Welcome!

It all started when, once upon a time, I was a graduate student in the sciences who had just discovered the #SciComm world. My people! I decided I wanted a career in SciComm, not science. I went to lots of SciComm workshops held by my university, often with help from groups like COMPASS. They all said the same thing: Work with your university press office. Write for The Conversation. Work on your elevator pitch. Tell a story about your work.

I’d leave these workshops so dang frustrated that they didn’t tell me anything about how to, say, write for Discover magazine, or become a T.V. host on a nature show, or even just get started as a measly Instagram influencer! Humph!

It wasn’t until much later that I actually understood what had been happening here: There’s a big difference between #SciComm and science journalism. 

If you’re interested in getting into science communication, the first question to ask yourself is: Do you want to be a scientist who talks publicly about your own field of study, or do you want to leave science and report on other people’s work? The former is #SciComm. The latter is journalism.

Of course, the line here is fuzzy. Especially because not all science writers are journalists, some SciCommers are also journalists, and so on. But if you want to do any of it, it helps to know what’s what.


The way I see it, SciCommers are active scientists who also do a lot of public-facing work. I know them from Twitter. They’re on Instagram, they’re on Tik Tok. They’re marine biologists giving talks to school kids about the ocean. They’re the neurologist you always see quoted in articles when new brain studies come out.

But in the end, these are scientists who are also great communicators. They might not even be talking about their exact research project all the time (in fact, many aren’t.) But when it comes down to it, their day job is a scientist. They’re experts in their field, and they’re sharing it with the world. They are not getting a bonus in their professor salary (and certainly not in their postdoc or grad student salary) for having 30K Twitter followers.

(Of course, some could, in theory, be making some money on the side from some of their #SciComm efforts! I have no idea. My point is just that they’re first and foremost, career scientists.)

Science Journalists

Most people who work “in the media” have a subject area they cover. There are food writers, and travel writers, and political writers, and science writers. These people are journalists. And although covering a subject repeatedly does teach you a lot about it, in journalism, the writer is not “the expert.” Instead, the writer is talking to experts — scientists, in the case of science writing — and getting their take on the story. Then the writer’s job is to communicate that take, in combination with the takes of other experts, into a story that someone wants to read. The journalist’s job is not to communicate their own opinion or expertise. 

In fact, a journalist who used to be a scientist (like yours truly) would not write a story about their former work or former colleagues. That’s not what journalism is all about — you want the “journalist” to serve as an unbiased, outside observer, who tells the story that they’re witnessing from the outside looking in. You can’t tell that story if you’re already on the inside.

Why not both?

Some people just want to have it all, and I suppose that’s fine. I still think it’s helpful to know the difference. Some people have a scientist job, do #SciComm in their own field, and dabble with some freelance science journalism. Sounds exhausting, but hey, you do you!

Anna Funk is a freelance writer and editor based in Kansas City. After earning a Ph.D. in prairie ecology, she started her journalism career as a AAAS Mass Media fellow at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, followed by 2 years as editor at Discover magazine. She now covers health, science, and the environment for local and national outlets, does freelance marketing and communications work, and has too much fun writing her email newsletter about her garden, The Funkyard. Follow her on Twitter @DrAnnaFunk or get in touch at

  1. You’re leaving out a pretty big third group here, I think: science communication advisors, the press officers, people at science centres, etc. The people who help scientists spread the word, so to speak, the ‘support staff’, aka science communication practicioners.

  2. I’d like to highlight that although I agree with the differentiation between SciComm and Science Journalism, there’s a fundamental point that strikes me as not entirely right: not every SciCommer is a scientist.

    Many of us today doing Science Communication have finished Postgraduate studies in this particular field. We then start jobs in different research organisations to assist and support the communication of the work carried by other researchers within the same institution. Helping them with their presentations, with finding the core messages or with illustrations that enrich their speeches, alongside creating podcasts, editing reports or managing the organisation’s social media channels.

    I understand that while in the past the ones communicating science were mainly scientists themselves, today the role is shifting and becoming and specialised field in itself.

    I did study Biomedicine but realised I wanted to communicate science very early on so I don’t consider myself a scientist. Today, I communicate about research that is significantly unrelated to my background, bioinformatics.

    I’ve met many like me – perhaps, there should be a completely different term for the new science communication roles.

    1. Hi Xenia,
      Sorry for my delay in replying, I only recently was altered to these comments! I completely agree that there are lots of careers in science communication, not just scientists. It was moreso that I was frustrated that all the #scicomm I encountered was for scientists and by scientists.
      I wrote up my thoughts in a reply, since a lot of people took the same message from the post as you did! Thanks.

      1. Hi Anna, many thanks for taking the time to reply. I realise this is an even more delayed reply to your reply – I’ve just been emailed by a colleague who saw my message.
        I wanted to thank you for opening up this discussion. SciComm is still quite an unknown area (or a temporary deviation from a scientific career path). I didn’t intend my comment as a criticism but rather as a “let’s talk about these unknown roles”.

        As I said, thanks for writing about your experience. I enjoyed reading your reply, too. I currently co-host a podcast looking into different career paths, about people who pivoted in their scientific careers. Perhaps you’re interested in joining us as a guest.

  3. I would be intrigued to know what you think about the the role of professional science communicators, Anna. Science communication is emerging as a field in itself, not necessarily practised only by scientists communicating their own work form universities, but by individuals who are trained specifically in science communication and who aim to to ensure that society receives science messages accurately, is science literate or, sometimes, to advocate for a particular field or policy goal. (As a result of these different purposes, there are a diversity of science communication styles and practitioners, rather than only a group of scientists communicating their work through their institutional press offices.) Science communication professionals play a crucial facilitating and catalytic role in connecting science and society, and much of their work does not involve journalism. I feel that your blog missed this important third group, although it brought important clarity to the definition and purpose of science journalism.

    1. Hi Sarah,
      Oh I LOVE professional science communicators! Although I’ve ended up a science writer, I often considered going into education, science policy, or other arms of the field. I wasn’t intending to claim that scientists and journalists are the only people doing science communication, but it seems most people took my post that way. I wrote up a reply to clear things up, if you’re interested.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Add your ORCID here. (e.g. 0000-0002-7299-680X)

Related Posts
Back to top