Uploaded December 2020 | Updated September 2026, 1 day ago
The most exciting science stories that journalists cover, from artificial intelligence to gene editing, often have an ethical component. What are the social implications of a particular line of research? How much should writers emphasize the possible abuses of a new piece of scientific knowledge? Is the very act of reporting on controversial research in a way condoning it?
These were among the questions that inspired a special workshop session on October 15, 2020, as part of the ScienceWriters2020 conference. The panel discussion took a deep, multi-perspective dive into the journalistic decisions and conversations behind a New York Times Magazine story that ran online in July 2019 under the headline "Scientists Are Giving Dead Brains New Life. What Could Go Wrong?" The workshop was sponsored by the Kavli Foundation and organized by the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing (@ScienceWriting).
Shown on this video are:
Robin Marantz Henig (chief session organizer and moderator), a long-time freelance journalist, journalism ethics instructor, and former president of the National Association of Science Writers;
Karen S. Rommelfanger (co-moderator), neuroethics program director at the Emory University Center for Ethics;
Matt Shaer, writer at large for the New York Times Magazine and author of the story;
Nenad Sestan, a professor of neuroscience, comparative medicine, genetics, and psychiatry at Yale University, whose research was the focus of the story;
Mike Benoist, the story editor at the New York Times Magazine;
L Syd Johnson, a philosopher and bioethicist at SUNY Upstate Medical University; and
Khara Ramos, chief, neuroscience content and strategy, Office of Neuroscience Communications and Engagement, National Institute of Neurodegenerative Diseases and Stroke
The most exciting science stories that journalists cover, from artificial intelligence to gene editing, often have an ethical component. What are the social implications of a particular line of research? How much should writers emphasize the possible abuses of a new piece of scientific knowledge? Is the very act of reporting on controversial research in a way condoning it?
These were among the questions that inspired a special workshop session on October 15, 2020, as part of the ScienceWriters2020 conference. The panel discussion took a deep, multi-perspective dive into the journalistic decisions and conversations behind a New York Times Magazine story that ran online in July 2019 under the headline "Scientists Are Giving Dead Brains New Life. What Could Go Wrong?" The workshop was sponsored by the Kavli Foundation and organized by the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing (@ScienceWriting).
Shown on this video are:
Robin Marantz Henig (chief session organizer and moderator), a long-time freelance journalist, journalism ethics instructor, and former president of the National Association of Science Writers;
Karen S. Rommelfanger (co-moderator), neuroethics program director at the Emory University Center for Ethics;
Matt Shaer, writer at large for the New York Times Magazine and author of the story;
Nenad Sestan, a professor of neuroscience, comparative medicine, genetics, and psychiatry at Yale University, whose research was the focus of the story;
Mike Benoist, the story editor at the New York Times Magazine;
L Syd Johnson, a philosopher and bioethicist at SUNY Upstate Medical University; and
Khara Ramos, chief, neuroscience content and strategy, Office of Neuroscience Communications and Engagement, National Institute of Neurodegenerative Diseases and Stroke
