Reddit reviews The Science Writers' Handbook: Everything You Need to Know to Pitch, Publish, and Prosper in the Digital Age

Oh, I wouldn’t get a PhD unless I really wanted to be a scientist! (That’s what I wanted to do when I started mine.) It’s a long, tough slog if you don’t intrinsically enjoy the work. I stuck it out to the end because I did enjoy some aspects of it and adored the people I worked with. But I suspect that if you want to be a science journalist, you probably already have enough of a science background to do a great job. (At least one of the best science reporters I’ve known had no science degree at all.) Just my opinion. Here’s a good blog post with more opinions. I also really like this book and this blog. -- Heidi

I do some science writing in addition to academic scientific writing. The main part is to know what to leave out. Does it matter EXACTLY what experiments the researchers did? No. It matter's what they found (and that they actually found what they're saying they found).

Don't make long meandering sentences with a bunch of conjunctions and parenthetical phrases. Those are hard to read. Your readers are going to be reading very fast and if they get lost, they are going to stop and move on to something else. Don't lose your readers. You also have to know what they know. Can you just say polymers or do you have to explain what a polymer is? This is important.

Use active voice. None of that passive voice in science bullshit (unless that sentence calls for it). Use exciting verbs. Don't rely on a thesaurus. The reader will know.

If you like I'd be glad to read one of your pieces and give it a critique. Here are some good books to read if you're serious about getting into science writing.

Narrative Nonfiction--very popular now

Science Writer's Handbook

Fieldguide for science writing

Style book--not about science but needed for good writing, and it's funny