Finkbeiner, Davis & Schlegel

Finkbeiner, Davis & Schlegel
Name	Finkbeiner, Davis & Schlegel
Type	Style guideline
Subject	Science communication
First pub	2015
Authors	Jennifer Finkbeiner; Kyle Davis; David Schlegel
Language	English

Contents

Finkbeiner, Davis & Schlegel is a set of editorial guidelines intended to reshape how biographies and profiles of scientists are written, emphasizing equity in representation and reducing gendered framing in coverage of researchers. The guidelines emerged from discussions among science writers and journalists and have influenced reporting practices across journalism, academic communications, and outreach, prompting engagement from reporters at outlets such as The New York Times, The Guardian, Nature (journal), Science (journal), and Scientific American. They intersect with debates over representation involving figures linked to United Nations initiatives, National Institutes of Health, and institutions like Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, California Institute of Technology, and Stanford University.

Background and Formation

The guideline was developed in response to longstanding coverage patterns observed by writers associated with outlets including National Public Radio, The Atlantic, Wired (magazine), The Washington Post, and advocacy organizations such as Association of Health Care Journalists and National Association of Science Writers. Its origins trace to conversations in forums hosted by institutions like Smithsonian Institution and conferences including Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting, AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) gatherings, and workshops at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and MIT Media Lab. Key motivating incidents involved profiles that foregrounded personal life details in pieces on awardees of prizes such as the Nobel Prize, Lasker Award, and MacArthur Fellowship, and on researchers affiliated with centers like Broad Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and CERN.

The set prescribes avoiding language that frames a scientist’s biography around familial status, marital relationships, domestic roles, or appearance, urging instead focus on professional accomplishments, publications, grants, and institutional affiliations. It recommends centering metrics such as peer-reviewed articles published in Nature (journal), Science (journal), Cell (journal), citation indicators like those tracked by Web of Science and Scopus, major funding from agencies like National Science Foundation, European Research Council, and career landmarks including appointments at Princeton University, Yale University, University of California, Berkeley, or leadership of labs funded by Wellcome Trust. The guidance aligns rhetorically with interventions by groups such as Women in STEMM, 500 Women Scientists, Ada Lovelace Day, and policy discussions at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Subsequent iterations were influenced by critique and empirical studies from scholars at University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Michigan, and University of California, Los Angeles measuring gendered language in media coverage. Revisions incorporated recommendations from diversity offices at universities like University of Toronto and McGill University and input from organizations including Pew Research Center and Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Workshops at conferences hosted by AAAS, European Geosciences Union, and American Chemical Society informed practical checklists referencing awards such as the Breakthrough Prize and data repositories like PubMed and arXiv. The guidelines evolved to address intersectional factors highlighted by scholars connected to Harvard Kennedy School and London School of Economics.

Newsrooms and communications departments at outlets and institutions including BBC, Reuters, Associated Press, Princeton University Press, University of California system, and funding bodies like Howard Hughes Medical Institute incorporated the guidance into editorial policies, diversity training, and hiring practices. Adoption correlates with measurable shifts reported in audits by groups such as Global Media Monitoring Project, studies published in PLOS One and PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), and policy memos from think tanks like Brookings Institution and RAND Corporation. The guideline influenced coverage of recipients of honors from Royal Society, Max Planck Society, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and leadership changes at institutions such as Salk Institute.

Critics from media commentators at The New Yorker and scholars at Johns Hopkins University and University of Chicago argued the guidance can sanitize narrative detail, diminish human interest, or impose rigid formulas on profile writing. Some cultural commentators linked to Columbia Journalism Review and The Times (London) warned of a tension between audience engagement strategies used by outlets like BuzzFeed and Vox Media and prescriptive rules, while legal scholars at Georgetown University Law Center and Yale Law School questioned implications for free expression. Debates extended to panels at SXSW and TED, and letters to editors in outlets such as Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal voiced divergent views about editorial autonomy versus equity interventions.

Applications include rewrites of profiles following controversies involving coverage of academics at University of Oxford and University of Cambridge, redesigns of newsroom stylebooks at The New York Times and The Guardian, and communications campaigns by research centers like Sanger Institute and Riken. The guidance informed reporting on laureates of the Nobel Prize in Physics, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, high-profile appointments at Imperial College London and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and biographical pieces in magazines including Nature (magazine) careers section, Scientific American Mind, and New Scientist. It has been cited in curricula at journalism schools including Medill School of Journalism, Columbia Journalism School, and Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism as a case study in editorial ethics and inclusive reporting.

Category:Science communication