Science and technology reporter Robert S. Boyd has worked in the Washington Bureau of McClatchy Newspapers – and its predecessor, Knight Ridder Newspapers – for 47 years, 20 of them as bureau chief.

He shared a Pulitzer Prize with Clark Hoyt, now the public editor of the New York Times, for revealing mental illness in the background of Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Thomas Eagleton. In science writing, he has covered topics ranging from astronomy to zoology, serving as a source of the science news that appears in McClatchy’s 31 newspapers in 29 local U.S. markets; the publisher also operates the leading local website in each of those markets.  McClatchy says its Washington bureau reporters “don’t cover every story that moves… they concentrate on news developments that we believe are of special importance, those in which we have particular expertise and those that otherwise would go unreported.” 

What are you looking for from scientist sources?

I look for scientists who will respond to my questions in clear layman’s language, with a minimum of jargon. They should be well-qualified in the subject matter and be able to explain complex topics.

Do you have a background in science? Does that matter?

It matters that I don’t have a personal background in science, but only slightly. Science is so specialized these days that training in biology, say, would not help me in reporting on astronomy, geology, etc. I try to make up for my lack of formal science education by reading journals and books, attending conferences and workshops, visiting laboratories, going on field trips, and drawing on the vast scientific resources in the Washington area.

How important is the scientist to your story, generally?

The scientist is essential to my stories, either in person, by telephone or email, or by his published papers and books.

How do you handle the balance between scientific accuracy and "dumbing down" information?

It is a major challenge to maintain the right balance between scientific accuracy and successful communication with ordinary readers. That’s a science writer’s job. I don’t like to think of it as “dumbing down information.”  I use a mental yardstick: the scientist is at one end, the reader at the other end, and I want to be nearer to the reader than to the scientist.

What suggestions would you give scientists for how to successfully communicate to journalists and the general public? What should they keep in mind?

To successfully communicate with journalists and the public, a scientist must first engage their interest, which is not always easy. He/she has to supply context and explain why this material is important. He cannot assume that his audience has a lot of background information. Scientists who appear on Public Television usually are very good at this.

Talk about some ways scientists have been useful to you in covering a story.

Scientists have been extremely helpful when they let me observe them at work. For example, I camped out with geologists in the Dry Valleys of Antarctica. I spent 20 days on a research ship in the Northeast Pacific studying underwater volcanoes. I visited the hot springs in Yosemite with biochemists like Norm Pace and WOMAN. It’s also good when a scientist corrects misunderstandings, supplies papers and photos, and refers me to other experts.

What would you like to see scientists do differently in interviews with you?

I would like scientists, in interviews, to try very hard to explain their work in clear, vivid language that I can pass on to my readers.  A punchy quote, colorful analogy or catchy sound-bite, is always welcome, but not at the expense of accuracy.

What's different about your medium/outlet/format that scientists should keep in mind?

My medium, McClatchy Newspapers, deals primarily in words. But we are always eager for pictures or graphics to illustrate the story. And now, like everybody else, we are on the web, and can use video and audio.