You are here: HomeNews and EventsNews


Winners Announced for 2014 Journalism Awards

The winners of the Association of British Science Writers Awards for Britain and Ireland 2014 were announced at an Awards ceremony tonight (Wednesday 18 June).  Speaking at the ceremony Martin Ince, President of the ABSW, said; ‘It was wonderful to see so many colleagues both old and new at the ABSW Awards Ceremony this evening and to celebrate all that is great about British and Irish science journalism and writing.  Support from Janssen Research and Development enabled us to re-establish our Awards in 2010, and we now offer ten awards including new awards this year for blogging and for student science publications.  We are particularly pleased to see such good representation from Irish journalists in the shortlists and winners, as the support from Janssen R & D enabled us to extend our Awards to Ireland. Next year we will be introducing a category of European Science Journalist of the Year to further expand our celebration of great science journalism to the rest of Europe. ’  
ABSW Science Writers’ Awards for Britain and Ireland - Winners
The best feature 
Winner:  Jessa Gamble, Researcher at Arup, for The End of Sleep? published by Aeon Magazine (online), 10-04-2013
Runners Up:
Stuart Clark, Freelance, for Ear on the Universe, published by New Scientist, 21-09-2013
Michael Le Page, Biology and environment editor at New Scientist, for The lowdown on the slowdown published by New Scientist, 07-12-2013
The best news item
Winner: Ian Sample, Science Correspondent, The Guardian, for US scientists boycott Nasa conference over China ban published by The Guardian, 05-10-2013
Runners Up:
Ewen Callaway, Senior Reporter, Nature for Deal done over HeLa cell line published by Nature 07-08-2013
Robin McKie, Science and Technology Editor, The Observer, for Gene Wars: the last ditch battle over who owns the rights to our DNA published by The Observer, 21-04-2013
The best scripted/edited television programme or online video:
Winner: Team Entry: Jacqueline Smith (Executive Producer, BBC Television and Series Producer), Nathan Budd (Producer), James Logan (Presenter), for Insect Dissection: How Insects Work broadcast BBC Four, 20-03-2013. The programme was a co-production between BBC Four and Discovery Science.
Runners Up:
Team Entry: Paul Olding (Writer/Producer/Director), Freelance and Michael Scott (Presenter/Writer), Historian, for The Mystery of Rome’s X Tombs broadcast BBC Two, 29-07-2013
Team Entry: Will Goodbody, Science and Technology Correspondent, RTÉ and Paul Deighan, RTÉ news cameraman, for Irish scientists at CERN’s cutting edge broadcast on Nationwide on RTÉ1, 18-10-2013
The Royal Society Radio Prize (NB: A prize for the best scripted/edited radio programme or podcast, supported by The Royal Society)
Winner: Team Entry: Anne McNaught (BBC Radio Scotland Producer) and Euan McIlwraith (Presenter) for Scotland’s Wildlife: Supporting Native Species, broadcast BBC Schools Radio, Scotland, 26-09-2013
Runners Up:
Team Entry: Alex Bellos (Writer/Research) and Andrew Luck-Baker (BBC Radio Producer) for Nirvana by Numbers broadcast BBC Radio 4, 07-10-2013
Team Entry: Kerri Smith (Audio Editor/Journalist, Nature) and Charlotte Stoddart (Audio Editor/Journalist, Nature), for Nature PastCast: May 1985, published by Nature Podcasts, 17-05-2013
The best investigative journalism
Winner: Team Entry: Mike Power (Writer), Bobbie Johnson (Editor), Kristen French (Fact checker), Tim Heffernan (Copy editor) for Uncontrolled Substances published by MATTER, 25-10-2013
Runners Up:
Alison Abbott, Senior European Correspondent at Nature for Italian Stem-Cell Trial based on flawed data published Nature News website, 02-07-2013
Steve Connor, Science Editor at the Independent for Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate science published by the Independent, 25-01-2013
The NUJ Stephen White Award for best communication and reporting of science in a non science context.   This Award is made in memory of Stephen White, a highly influential science communicator who sadly died in 2010.   The Award is possible due to a donation from Stephen’s widow Elizabeth. 
Winner: Christopher White, freelance, for The complete guide to DNA for family historians published by Your Family Tree Magazine, 27-03-2013
Runners Up:
Team Entry: Michelle Martin (BBC Science Radio Producer), Tracey Logan (Presenter) for Technicolour broadcast BBC Radio 4, 30-01-2013
Team Entry: Will Goodbody, Science and Technology Correspondent, RTÉ and Paul Deighan, RTÉ news cameraman, for Irish scientists at CERN’s cutting edge broadcast Nationwide on RTÉ1, 18-10-2013
The best newcomer award
Winner: Joanne O’Dea, Freelance
Runners Up:
Melissa Hogenboom, Assistant Producer/Science reporter BBC
Jennifer Whyntie, Assistant Producer, BBC
The Good Thinking student science blog award supported by Good Thinking (new award for 2014):
Winner: Sarah Hearne, PhD student, Department of Zoology, Trinity College Dublin, for Sea Serpents off the Port Bow! Published by, 01-11-2013
Runners Up:
Lauren Hoskin, MSc Science Communication, Imperial College London, for The changing flora of obesity, published by, 25-09-2013
Matthew Warren, DPhil Student, University of Oxford, for Synchrotrons, ships and sulphur: Using a particle accelerator to help conserve the Mary Rose, published by, 14-10-2013
The best science blog award (new award for 2014)
Joint winners:
Not Exactly Rocket Science (Individual Entry) Ed Yong. Published by National Geographic
Cancer Research UK Science Blog (Team Entry) Editorial Team: Henry Scowcroft, Kat Arney, Oliver Childs, Nick Peel. Published by Cancer Research UK
Runner Up:
Head Quarters (Team Entry) Core Bloggers: Chris Chambers, Molly Crockett, Pete Etchells, Thalia Gjersoe. Published by The Guardian
The IOP student science publication award supported by IOP Publishing and the Institute of Physics (new award for 2014) NB: This award provides prize money for a winner and a runner up
Winner: Women Rock Science (online publication). Editor, Hadiza Mohammed
Runner Up: theGIST, printed magazine (University of Strathclyde & University of Glasgow). Team Entry: Editors: Timothy Revell, Emilie Steinmark, Alan Boyd 
Shortlisted: Spark Magazine, printed magazine (University of York). Team Entry: Will Ingram (Editor), Matt Ravenhall (Editor), Ellen Rawlins (Photography Editor), Tree Jervis (Web Editor), Jess Wynn (Content Editor)
Life Time Achievement Award
Lawrence McGinty, ITV News’ Science & Medical Editor
Lawrence is an award-winning journalist who has long-been viewed as an exemplar for science and health reporting, covering even the most controversial and difficult subjects in an informative, critical, entertaining and knowledgeable manner. The scientific community was saddened to learn he is retiring this year as he has truly had a profound impact, navigating his way through scientific milestones, international disasters, clinical trials, and a flood  of hyperbole, all the while promoting excellence not just in science journalism, but in journalism in general. Excerpt from the statement supporting Lawrence’s nomination.
The ABSW Science Writers’ Awards for Britain and Ireland 2014 attracted nearly 200 entries.  An independent panel of science journalists and science communicators judged the entries based on originality, appeal to a broad audience, novelty of subject matter, likely impact, style, content, entertainment, balance and depth of reporting. 
Award winners will receive a certificate and a small cash prize and enter the ABSW hall of fame that includes previous Award winners Sir David Attenborough, Sir John Maddox (Nature), and Judith Hann (BBC Tomorrow’s World).
The Awards Ceremony took place at The Royal Society, London after the ABSW’s biennial conference the UK Conference of Science Journalists.
Full details of the rules and regulations for the awards and a full list of judges can be found at
For further information contact:
Sallie Robins – ABSW Awards Administrator
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
07733 330344
Notes for editors:  
Association of British Science Writers (ABSW)
Founded in 1947, the Association of British Science Writers (ABSW) exists to help those who write about science, health and technology, and to improve the standard of science journalism in the UK. The ABSW is an association which includes science writers, journalists and broadcasters and that promotes the highest standards of journalism and writing by encouraging investigation and creativity. @absw
Where permitted by the entrant and or publisher, copies of the shortlisted articles/broadcasts are available at 
About Janssen
At Janssen Research & Development, we are united and energized by one mission - to discover and develop innovative medicines that ease patient’s suffering, and solve the most important unmet medical needs of our time. 
As one of the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies, our strategy is to identify the biggest unmet medical needs and match them with the best science, internal or external, to find solutions for patients worldwide. We leverage our world-class discovery and development expertise, and operational excellence, to bring innovative, effective treatments in five therapeutic areas: 
• cardiovascular and metabolism 
• immunology 
• infectious diseases and vaccines 
• neuroscience 
• oncology 
We think of the world as our laboratory and we look for innovation wherever it exists. This drives our relentless search for the best science, and our pursuit of collaborations and partnerships. We believe there are no limits to what science can do. And we never lose sight of those who rely most on our discoveries.   
About the Institute of Physics –
The Institute of Physics is a leading scientific society. We are a charitable organisation with a worldwide membership of more than 50,000, working together to advance physics education, research and application. 
About IOP Publishing –
IOP Publishing is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Institute of Physics. It provides a range of journals, conference proceedings, magazines, websites, books and other services that enable researchers and research organisations to achieve the biggest impact for their work.
The Royal Society
The Royal Society is a self-governing Fellowship of many of the world’s most distinguished scientists drawn from all areas of science, engineering, and medicine. The Society’s fundamental purpose, as it has been since its foundation in 1660, is to recognise, promote, and support excellence in science and to encourage the development and use of science for the benefit of humanity.
The Society’s strategic priorities emphasise its commitment to the highest quality science, to curiosity-driven research, and to the development and use of science for the benefit of society. 
These priorities are:
1.       Promoting science and its benefits
2.       Recognising excellence in science
3.       Supporting outstanding science
4.       Providing scientific advice for policy
5.       Fostering international and global cooperation
6.       Education and public engagement
For further information please visit Follow the Royal Society on Twitter at or on Facebook at
UK Conference of Science Journalists (UKCSJ14)
A full day of discussion and debate for up to 300 journalists, with three key aims: 
To discuss and debate contemporary issues in science journalism
To encourage and provide skills for newcomers
To promote professional development
The full programme and registration details can be found at the Conference website
  - the love child of Medium and Kickstarter

A new online platform that changes the way in-depth articles are produced has recently been launched called Here, its editor Sarah Hartley explains how science writers could benefit from the new development which is being backed by the Guardian Media Group.

Already dubbed the love child of Medium and Kickstarter, the new platform is looking to change the way long form pieces of journalism are produced by using the particular qualities digital technologies have allowed for.

Put simply it allows members of the site to back pieces of work that have been proposed via the online site - in effect taking the role of commissioning editors out to the crowd, putting decision making into the hands of a community of people who care about the topics.

In a recent interview with Gigaom [ ], co-founder Matt McAlister explained how the initiative had evolved.

“We’re trying to put some transparency around the journalism process — the core premise being around collaboration with your peers, with other writers — and the mechanisms and the processes that journalists operate by. We wanted to create a platform that just sort of opened that up, so any number of people in the community could participate in it openly.”

The team behind the platform has a varied experience in digital publishing going back over many years. I’m an active multimedia journalist and blogger and previously worked for more than a decade at the Guardian Media Group in a variety of senior editorial posts. There’s also:

Matt McAlister who develops new businesses at Guardian Media Group. He has been involved in various aspects of the digital publishing ecosystem since 1994 - leading digital arms of print businesses, building platform services at large media companies and creating new digital businesses.

Developer Dan Catt, helped to build Flickr in the early years of Web2.0 and later returned from San Francisco to work at the Guardian to take a sideways look at the data behind the news. He now splits his time between working with data, studying the news and trying to get back to his struggling artist roots.

Together we work with a team of freelance designers and developers and will be continuing to evolve and enhance the platform over the coming months in response to the feedback we get from our members.

The platform works in a three step process, over three months, to allow for in-depth research and interviews to be carried out by the writers:

  • Step one is that writers propose story ideas in month one, and all members assess them and decide if they wish to back stories collectively using points allocated to them from their membership fees (NB: At the moment membership is free thanks to support from Guardian Media Group. At some point in the future, members will pay a membership fee which becomes the collective pot for writers' commissions, a bit like a cooperative).
  • Step two. A month during which collaborative editing tools help writers work together with their peers to improve the quality of their output. Contributoria enables live co-editing with other interested community members.
  • Step three. Lastly, final versions of articles produced by the community are published on the Contributoria web site in month three where they will remain free to the public and available for re-use with a Creative Commons license (CC-BY-NC). Writers whose works get published are paid using the community’s membership funding pool. Commissioning options are also available to media organisations to supplement the community’s crowdfunding activities with additional payments being made to authors.

Journalists and specialist writers are sometimes wary of working through their ideas in public but the platform is built in such a way that allows for collaboration with other members who have invested in the production of the article.

There are currently 24 articles being funded (at a cost of more than £7.5k) and worked on by the writers and members which will be published online in an issue, a bit like a magazine, in March. (You can get an idea of the activity here [ but the drafts are currently only viewable to members involved in the production.)

Included in the next issue are articles about solar power, biofuels and a look at transcending the Anthropocene in science.

The authors getting involved to date have mostly been professional journalists and published authors and, while the topics proposed by writers will no doubt be as diverse and varied as the writers themselves as the platform matures, it already seems that the long-form nature of the medium does lend itself to specialist areas such as science.

So will you join us? We’re giving our members the tools to support the journalism they really want to read, a way to reward the producers of content who are creating what they want to see out there in the world.

  • You can find out more about here and follow on Twitter @contributoria or Facebook or feel free to contact me directly This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .


ScienceDirect - online access to Elsevier Journals

ScienceDirect provides online access to all Elsevier journals.   Journalists can search for stories or have access to research papers highlighted in Elsevier press releases and research alerts.   Journalist members of the ABSW can apply for a free media code for ScienceDirect, please see here for further details.
For more information on ScienceDirect and to view video tutorials go to:
Elsevier’s Research Selection, an e-newsletter developed especially for science reporters, is issued every two weeks and highlights research that has recently appeared online and have not been covered in the media previously. The research included is selected for its relevance to the general public; summaries of research highlighted link directly to the full article on ScienceDirect, allowing journalists to determine the angle for their story.   To sign up for the newsletter contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
If you would like more information on media services provided by Elsevier or if you have any specific questions please contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Twitter: @ElsevierNews

New libel laws brought into force after a 5-year campaign

New Year’s Day saw the most radical update of libel laws in England and Wales for many years. Hailed by charity Sense about Science as a ‘new dawn for libel law’, writers and journalists hope that the Defamation Act will protect their freedom of speech and combat the growing issue of libel tourism.

Under the new legislation claimants must demonstrate that they have suffered ‘serious harm’ before suing, making it harder for the powerful to stifle their critics. The Act also specifically protects academic and scientific publications.

Issues concerning antiquated UK libel laws were brought to the notice of the science writing community when Simon Singh’s damning – but justified - article about chiropractic for The Guardian prompted the British Chiropractic Association to sue. The subsequent lengthy legal battle became a cause célèbre, kick-starting the Libel Reform Campaign.

Journalist Ben Goldacre has been victim to a similar libel accusation by vitamin-pill manufacturer Matthias Rath, resulting in legal costs in excess of £500,000.

The Libel Reform Campaign sought to highlight UK libel laws ‘designed to serve the rich and powerful’, and to persuade politicians to bring about ‘long overdue’ reformations.

Now, it is hoped that the experiences of Singh and Goldacre will not be repeated. Singh described the new Defamation Act as “a great tribute to grassroots activism and all the individuals and groups that lobbied for free speech and against the chilling effect of libel”.

However, Northern Ireland is yet to follow suit and only parts of the Act apply to Scotland, creating a potential loophole for libel tourism.

ABSW Member Robin McKie awarded Science and Technology Journalist of the Year

ABSW member Robin McKie won Science and Technology Journalist of the Year at this week's British Journalism Awards

The judges said: “He goes for the biggest subjects and makes technical issues compelling with his approachable style of writing. They were particularly impressed by his piece on controversial GM crop Golden Rice which it is claimed could save millions for blindness.”

The Awards now in their second year, are run by the Press Gazette, lead sponsor is Santander.

Newsnight Science Editor sacked: fears programme may be ‘dumbing down’

BBC2’s Newsnight has abolished the role of Science Editor held by the long-serving, award-winning science journalist Susan Watts. This is part of a series of changes to the programme being executed by Newsnight editor Ian Katz.

Watts joined Newsnight in 1995 and has covered many key stories in the programme’s history, most notably the BSE crisis, coverage of which won Newsnight a BAFTA award.

Watts tweeted that the decision to close her post was “disappointing, professionally and personally.”

Winners named in 2013 AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Awards Competition

Stories about efforts to prevent the Asian carp from invading the Great Lakes, about evolutionary stress on endangered pupfish in the Mojave Desert, and about the use of "crowdsourcing" to solve tough biological problems are among the winners of the 2013 AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Awards.

The awards, administered by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) since their inception in 1945, go to professional journalists for distinguished reporting for a general audience. TheKavli Foundation provided a generous endowment in 2009 that ensures the future of the awards program.

For the full story and list of winners see


The American Shutdown and Its Effect On Science Communications

Many reports have recorded how the shutdown of the United States Government has affected science journalism. So, what actually happened? How did it become such a problem? And why was science affected anyway?

There has been ongoing dispute between the Republicans and the Democrats over finance budgets. This is not a new thing - but the political parties usually resolve matters by debate and cunning. If they cannot agree or pass funding quotas for the following financial year, the term ‘shutdown’ is used. On this occasion, at the brunt of the arguments, President Obama’s healthcare plans to build a similar system to the NHS ignited panic and decisions were not made in time. Chaos ensued.

The White House budget office issued orders for government workers to remain at home, unpaid. Employees of national parks, museums, federal buildings and science laboratories were all sent away.

By the 10th October fears had spread and government funded science programmes were paused. Projects, including those in the Antarctic, ceased. Reports were apprehensive that Antarctic monitoring would be damaged considerably and the researchers were left rooting for ideas. Back-up plans after back-up plans were revised and rethought. Science began to suffer and research programmes were paused or even aborted. But it was not just the primary researchers having trouble.

Writers attempting to reach federal researchers for stories had trouble. There were difficulties along the journalism chain as manuscript reviews slowed down and writers were less available to write. Many science journalistsare dependent on federal websites. They reported that fact-checking became more difficult as federal census websites were shut down - information became more difficult to find and verify. Many reporters and researchers found reoccurring blocks as they desperately tried to find content from government websites. After all, how do you know the reliability of data if not from a reliable, official site?Then, of course, how can you review data that is no longer available?

The shutdown affected all aspects of scientific journalism. The shutdown of NASA and its website for example, included the furlough of near 90% of its work force and researchers in biological fields that could not get access to museum specimens. Here the impacts on science were most pronounced.

News reporters claimed “the government’s science, technology and health arms will be taking the biggest hits”. In a lot of ways the lack of funding that most units rely on really did damage the progress of these fields. Science journalism relies on information sourced from official databases or from research programmes that are most often funded by the government. Without them, there is very little to report and science communications begin to collapse. Journals and editorials suffered during the shutdown. The long duration and timing of the funding gap triggered delays in writing and then the review process, which may have had a knock on effect for the subsequent publications.

It is amazing how much American science relies on government funding. From primary collection and database collation, to the publication of journals: the American shutdown affected science communications a lot more than was expected. Now that the shutdown has finished, the scientific community should prepare for prospective financial issues and hopefully this won’t be such a problem in the future.

David Dickson (1947-2013)

We are sad to hear that David Dickson (1949 - 2013), ABSW committee member and founding director of, has passed away very suddenly.

David's vision and editorial leadership has led to becoming the leading provider of news and analysis focused on science and technology developments in the developing world.

He will also be remembered for his focus on helping many young journalists develop and grow over the years.

Before founding, David also worked for Nature, New Scientist and Science as both correspondent and editor.

He was also awarded a lifetime achievement award by the ABSW in 2012.

As an active ABSW committee member, we want to pay tribute to him again for his work, guidance and direction given to many of us over many years. He will be sadly missed.

Many tributes to David have been paid here, on Twitter and the ABSW's list. We've collected a few of these together for posterity. themselves sum up feeling right now: "David will be missed by his friends and colleagues alike, but his legacy will live on".

We concur completely.

Here are some of the comments we have received:

Natasha Loder (ex-ABSW Chair):

I just want to say how grateful I am to have known David Dickson who was a strong force for good in our world. His was a brilliant creation, and he was always driven to nurture and grow new talent--in his later years this extended to young science writers from around the globe.

 Wendy Barnaby (ex-ABSW Chair)

I’m shocked by this news.  David was an excellent guy who contributed to science journalism in many different areas, and who probably did more than anyone else to foster it in developing countries.

Clive Cookson

What a shock. I’ve known David for almost the whole of my career in science journalism, from our time together on the Times Higher Education Supplement onwards.  David was a superb analyst of science policy. After great work for Nature, Science and New Scientist, his creation of SciDev.Net was his crowning glory. I know from talking to David at the recent World Science Journalists Conference in Helsinki how much he was looking forward to the next phase of his career. So sad…

Why we sponsor good science writing

The ABSW Awards sponsor Janssen Research and Development on why they support good science writing:

by Seema Kumar, Vice President, Enterprise Innovation and Global Health Communication, Johnson & Johnson

It’s simple: We need good science communicators as much as we need good science.  Without reliable information—the explanation of fact, the exposure of challenges—science and the solutions it brings us could not exist.  Productive inquiry would run dry.  Frontiers would ebb.

Our company depends on people who can communicate hard science in lucid language, from the laboratory bench right through to those who engage directly with doctors.  We depend on them to get the science right, to check sources, interpret and clarify.  Their counsel helps guide our behaviour: promoting sound policies and sparking new discoveries.  They bring ideas to life, inspire innovation and collaboration and encourage engagement with Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine in a world that demands educated, informed decision makers.  We, Johnson & Johnson and the public, could not effectively govern ourselves or make progress for the benefit of the doctors, nurses, patients and customers we serve otherwise.

When Dr. Paul Janssen, our pharmaceutical company’s namesake, was alive and still heading our research and development operations, he would make a daily circuit around the labs asking each researcher his celebrated catch-phrase-cum-call to action, “What’s new?”  Connecting ideas (in his head) and people (in his labs), Dr. Paul became one of the most productive medical innovators and drug discoverers of the 20th century, helping to develop over 80 new medicines—and, in so doing, helping to save or improve the lives of countless people across the globe.  More than anything else it was Dr. Paul’s powerful curiosity, robust intellect, and disregard for traditional boundaries that built the business that today proudly bears his name.  Anything that fosters the qualities he exemplified ought to be promoted.

That’s why we are supporters of the World Congress of Science Journalists and the Association of British Science Writers Awards.  It’s why we attend the American Association for the Advancement of Science Congress annually and maintain relationships with journalists and bloggers, in the interest of being open and transparent.  It’s why we participate in the Euroscience Media Committee and host a science journalism internship program, to prop early career science reporters on their feet.  We recognize this isn’t just about pharmaceuticals, devices, or consumer products.  It’s about science—humankind’s best bet in the pursuit of truth, knowledge and good health.  It is impossible to overstate the importance of accurate, evidence-based, trustworthy data grounded in reproducible experiments.  Good science writing conveys that.

Misinformation, on the other hand, can be crippling.  In DNA, a molecule particularly important to our industry (not to mention, to life itself), mutations on the level of a single base pairout of three billion can have grave repercussions.  It can affect a patient’s response to a drug, or how a pathogen interacts with the body.   Similarly even minor errors in science communications can also have grave repercussions, not the very least of it is a misinformed public and society.

The world needs more effective science communicators just as much as it needs more pioneering scientists.  Dr. Paul, the visionary whom we were fortunate enough to have lead us, was a rare blend of both.  His spirit still imbues us.  We are not afraid to share ideas.  To rise to new challenges.  To collaborate, innovate and go beyond.  Ultimately, our sponsorship of good science communication extends Dr. Paul’s legacy—reframing his rallying call “What’s new?” into an informed public discourse for our betterment.  We do it because it’s simply the right thing to do.

About Johnson & Johnson

Caring for the world, one person at a time…inspires and unites the people of Johnson & Johnson. We embrace research and science -- bringing innovative ideas, products and services to advance the health and well-being of people. Our approximately 128,000 employees at more than 275 Johnson & Johnson operating companies work with partners in health care to touch the lives of over a billion people every day, throughout the world. For more information about Johnson & Johnson visit:


Page 1 of 40

Related Articles (Beta)

Member Login


Advertise a job on the ABSW website and on our email list.


The 3rd UK Conference of Science Journalists will take place in London on Wed 18 June 2014. See what's in store by taking a look back at the 2nd UK Conference of Science Journalists

ABSW Awards

The winners of the 2012 ABSW Science Writers’ Awards were announced on Monday 25th June 2012.

Find a Science Writer

Looking for an expert science writer? Search our directory of members and get in contact with them directly. It couldn't be easier!

Go to top