I have been a bit harsh with science writers on a few occasions, though this has often been in good fun. I actually have a lot of respect for (good) science writers, and I think their job is a very important one — which is why I think it is critical that they do it well. If they were irrelevant, they would garner no attention from scientist-commentators like me.
A few times, I have pointed out stories that I think are very good, and have given credit where it is due. I single out JR Minkel, Aria Pearson, Heather Kowalski, and of course Carl Zimmer as excellent examples.
I will continue to point out both good and bad science writing, and to contribute where I am needed in the form of interviews or commentary. Today I want to link to another good story, this time a press release from the University of Bristol as posted by ScienceDaily.
This piece does the opposite of my guide to writing a bad science story. It provides some historical context. It shows how knowledge has accrued through the efforts of many researchers. It highlights the difficulty of getting a new idea recognized and how even “revolutionary” propositions do not become accepted overnight. Plus, it’s always useful to know some history of science and to give credit to those giants upon whose shoulders we stand.