The big journals and Nobel laureates are the equivalent of Congressional leaders in science journalism.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In general, science journalism concerns itself with what has been published in a handful of peer-reviewed journals - Nature, Cell, The New England Journal of Medicine - which set the agenda.
The Congressional leaders set the agenda for journalism; it's not the other way around.
I'm not sophisticated when it comes to politics, when it comes to journalism.
Look, everybody in journalism has a reputation of sorts.
The Nobel Prize is run by a self-perpetuated committee. They vote for themselves and get the world's publishing industry to jump to their tune.
It is well known that the Nobel Committees bring world opinion to a focus, and that fact still further enhances the prestige attaching to the Prizes.
Scientists are always the ones who head into the ocean, but I want to take writers and politicians, people who can convey the beauty that is there and perhaps do something to take care of it.
I have friends who are science journalists, and I'm seeing stories of theirs or talking with them about ideas that they're pitching. Certain kinds of science are around me all the time, like climate change and biology.
Science doesn't care, by and large, what the answers are. It's only interested in getting the right answer. And journalism should be very much that way.
Anyone can win the Nobel Prize if the scientist works hard on his research subject.