How sharing your science in an opinion piece can boost your career General readers are interested in your opinions, too
Don’t rely solely on academic papers to raise your professional profile
Synthetic biologist Devang Mehta finds that writing perspectives helps his career.Credit: Kaat Hebbelinck
Devang Mehta wrote his first opinion piece in 2017 for online magazine Slate when he was a graduate student at ETH Zurich, Switzerland (see go.nature.com/3rf7lwt). It had the provocative title, ‘Nobel Prizes Should Reward Science, Not Scientists’. Since then, he has written more than a dozen others for publications including Massive Science, Salon and Nature.
When colleagues ask Mehta, a synthetic biologist now at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, why he is such a prolific perspective writer, his reasons include an obligation to communicate science and enlightening policymakers. But he also points out another unexpected benefit: “Every single piece that I have written so far has always resulted in something positive for my career.”
An opinion piece, often referred to as an op-ed, commentary or guest essay, expresses the author’s personal views on a topic. They are widely popular articles — the The New York Times printed nearly 15,000 between 1970 and 2010. Many scientists might question using precious time to craft an opinion piece when they could be writing research publications, but “the number of people who are going to read that op-ed could be very different”, and almost always higher, says bioinformatician Philip Bourne at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, who co-authored ‘Ten Simple Rules for Writing Scientific Op-Ed Articles’ in PLOS Computational Biology1. “You are reaching a much more general audience.”
Trish Hall says opinion articles encourage readers to think differently.Credit: Jeffrey Henson Scales
Many scientists underestimate the value of their knowledge. In the current climate, more researchers need to write opinion pieces to counter anti-science sentiments and to build trust in the scientific endeavour, says Trish Hall, managing director at public affairs firm Ridgely Walsh in Washington DC, who previously edited The New York Times op-ed page. Research shows that opinion pieces can have significant effects on the viewpoints of the public and policy experts2. Writing perspective articles gives scientists the chance to share their expertise and encourage people to think in a different way. “It’s about cracking open the door of awareness,” Hall says.
Is it worth it?
It took several months for Lara Aknin and her co-authors to write a review article quantifying the mental-health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic3. But Aknin and two of her review co-authors also spent an extra week preparing an opinion piece about the research and their recommendations for The Atlantic (see go.nature.com/3riyqki).
Lara Aknin’s op-ed sparked a new project.Credit: Simon Fraser University
“We knew the academic paper would be published months down the road and we were keen to share the findings as soon as possible,” says Aknin, a social psychologist at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada. The piece in The Atlantic led to a meeting between public-health specialists in the US Office of the Surgeon General and the study’s researchers.
When Hoe-Han Goh, a plant biologist at the National University of Malaysia in Bangi, found out that Malaysia was lagging behind other Asian countries when it came to growing genetically modified crops, or even field testing them, it prompted him to write an opinion piece in the New Straits Times (see go.nature.com/3rot4kz). Readers pushed back on the 2015 article on the importance of cultivating genetically modified organisms (GMOs), writing letters to the editor opposing the crops in Malaysia. Goh realized that the public didn’t necessarily understand the research and the value of modified crops, prompting him to write more on the topic.
The response Hoe-Han Goh had to his article on gene editing encouraged him to write more.Credit: Hoe-Han Goh
Researchers also see the value in writing perspectives for other scientists. In 2023, Mehta wrote an opinion piece for Nature (see Nature 619, 437; 2023) discussing the European Commission’s law on the use of gene-editing technologies. His goal was to give an overview of the lengthy and complex legislation and point out the scientific stumbling blocks, Mehta says. “I can’t expect every scientist to read [the law in full], so I think an opinion piece that sets out the pain points was valuable”.
Typically, the people who talk to policymakers or the public are senior scientists, or perhaps even those who are retired from active research, but writing commentaries can give early-career researchers a chance to share their opinion, Mehta says. “It is valuable to also have the voice of people who are actively working in the lab,” he says.
More-established scientists can use opinion pieces to explore thought-provoking concepts, or even those that could fundamentally change current thinking. In 2021, Bourne wrote a piece4 called ‘Is “Bioinformatics” Dead?’, for example. “I’ve published a ton of papers,” Bourne says. “What I enjoy doing now is stirring the pot.”
Unexpected benefits
Bourne says his intent in the 2021 article was to prompt researchers to think about the field’s updated definition and potential. “Ultimately, a real benefit to this kind of opinion piece is just getting a variety of people, including the general public, thinking,” Bourne adds.
Philip Bourne has explored thought-provoking concepts in opinion pieces.Credit: Sanjay Suchak
Both Bourne and Aknin say that writing op-eds has forced them to think about subjects more deeply. For Aknin, reader feedback has even led to study ideas. After co-authoring an article on the relationship between spending on others and happiness5, readers questioned whether the benefits the authors found existed only in the wealthy nations of the United States and Canada, where the research was carried out. That led the scientists to conduct experiments in lower-income countries, including Uganda and South Africa, revealing the same link6.
When Steve Ecklund, host of Canadian outdoor TV show The Edge, posted images of a puma he’d killed for sport in 2017, editors of The Globe and Mail asked wildlife scientist Chris Darimont, to write about trophy hunting of large carnivores (see go.nature.com/3tev72u). Darimont, who is at the University of Victoria in Canada, posited that because hunting can be seen as a form extraction of public resources, it is society that gets to grant, or withhold, permission to hunt.
Chris Darimont’s opinion piece resulted in a guest appearance on a popular podcast.Credit: UVic Photos
The piece inspired him to follow up with an essay7 in Conservation Biology in which he further developed this concept of a social licence to hunt, arguing that the public overwhelmingly supports hunting animals such as deer for food, but not the hunting of large carnivores for trophies. The two pieces garnered a lot of media and public attention, including a guest slot on the world’s largest hunting podcast, MeatEater. “Hopefully I contributed to the real-world conversation surrounding trophy hunting,” Darimont says.
Scientists often cite service to society as motivation for writing perspective pieces but they also list a wide variety of professional benefits. An article in Nature about racism (see Nature 559, 153; 2018) resulted in Mehta advising the journal eLife on equity, diversity and inclusion in science publishing. And his 2023 Nature article on gene editing led to Mehta’s institute deploying him as its voice on the topic for European media.
Like Mehta, Goh says that his 30 opinion articles have earned him a reputation as an authority in the field and have led to invites to speak at events. “It has been like a stepping stone for more outreach,” Goh says.
Social anthropologist Elżbieta Drążkiewicz was once warned by a senior colleague that her research on conspiracy theories related to vaccine hesitancy among parents in Ireland was too niche and a frivolous topic. Just a few years later, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Drążkiewicz’s expertise was in hot demand.
In a 2022 Nature article (see Nature 603, 765; 2022), Drążkiewicz, now at Lund University in Sweden, called for compassion when studying conspiracy theories and their adherents. After its publication, scholars around the globe reached out to Drążkiewicz, expanding her professional network: “It really put me on the map.”
Proceed with prudent passion
Writing an opinion piece requires a different approach from writing research publications (see ‘Eleven tips for crafting commentaries’). Word counts are often short, typically 600–800 words, and so it is important to get straight to the point. “One of the biggest challenges is clearly, in one sentence, making the strongest claim that I can still defend,” Aknin says.
Eleven tips for crafting commentaries
1. Choose a timely and relevant topic.
2. Write a headline that makes readers and editors want more. (But be prepared for it to change.)
3. Grab the reader’s attention with a compelling ‘hook’ or anecdote.
4. State your main argument in the first few paragraphs.
5. Keep the piece short and focused — make every word count.
6. Back up your arguments with facts, statistics, examples and expertise.
7. ngage readers emotionally by using personal stories or anecdotes.
8. Use short sentences, everyday language and an informal tone.
9. Avoid scientific jargon and acronyms.
10. Restate your argument in the conclusion and end with a memorable and thought-provoking statement.
11. Once the article is accepted, get ready for the hard work of revising it.
Opinion articles should be based on real data, Bourne says. But, as Hall adds, they should not be simply a regurgitation of facts. “It can’t just be information, it can’t just be an analysis, there has to be some takeaway,” Hall says. “That’s the hard part.”
An effective opinion piece should involve storytelling, and a personal element can make it powerful, Hall says. Mehta, for example, often narrates that he grew up in India and saw people go hungry. “There’s a reason why I care so much about GMOs as a topic,” Mehta says. “And it is important to communicate that, so that the reader gets the connection.”
Mehta conveys passion in his articles, which several researchers identify as a key ingredient of opinion writing. Others caution that too much zeal can alienate readers who don’t necessarily relate to your argument from the outset. The goal is not to throw all your feelings out there, but to write in a way that is open enough to keep people reading, Drążkiewicz says. But you have to be prepared that not everyone will love what you write, she says.
Writing an opinion article can reap benefits for the author and the readers, and although the process is challenging, many researchers say that they also find it fun. Drążkiewicz’s positive experiences have inspired her to share her expertise on vaccine hesitancy more often. “It takes courage to write an opinion piece, but it is also extremely empowering,” Drążkiewicz says. “It made me realize that my voice matters.”
Nature 625, 205-206 (2024)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-04091-2
This story originally appeared on: Nature - Author:Jane Palmer
