‘I have found my love’

Maria Pazi won the prize for her series of texts about digitalisation of the World ‘CyberDNA’, ‘Digital love’, ‘Evolving Man’. They were published in the magazine ‘The Russian Reporter’. It is not her first professional award. Maria does not write often; though science journalism is not her main job, she loves writing about science very much. Probably, here lies the key to her success in this sphere.

Maria Pazi told the readers of the ‘St Petersburg University’ magazine how she became a science journalist, what she is going to write about, and why she has not yet decided whether or not she wants to be a biologist.

Maria Pazi graduated from St Petersburg University with a degree in biology. Now she works as a senior assistant researcher at the Laboratory of Comparative Thermophysiology, I.M. Sechenov Institute of Evolutionary Physiology and Biochemistry. She is also a science journalist. She has been writing about science since 2017. In the same year she was shortlisted for the ‘Debut in science journalism’, organised by the ‘Science of the future — Science of the young’ forum. She is a two-time winner of the national contest of innovative journalism Tech in Media (2018 and 2019).

Maria, tell us how did you become a science journalist?

When I was in my first year at the University, Asia Kazantseva (a graduate of St Petersburg University, science populariser) published a book ‘Someone is wrong on the Internet! Controversial Science Issues’. There was a presentation of this book in the Bookvoed bookstore where Asia gave a lecture. When I returned home from the presentation, I read her book in one gulp as well as the previous one ‘Who could have thought! How the brain makes us do stupid things?’ At that moment I realised that I wanted to try my hand at science communication. I found out where I could acquire the skills necessary for a science journalist. At around the same time, St Petersburg University began reviving a newspaper of biology students ‘Biotimes 2.0’. Unfortunately, we only released two issues of the newspaper with a year’s interval. In the first issue, I was among the authors. In the second issue, I was both an author and an editor. At the same time, I applied for an online course ‘Science journalism’ of Andrei Konstantinov, the editor of the science department of ‘The Russian Reporter’ magazine. In the workshop of the magazine we were given a lot of tasks, for example, to write a science news story, a review, or interview somebody. It was a chance to publish a good text. This is how my first publications appeared.

What were they about?

It so happened that my first texts were all related. After finishing the course, I had one raw text about how scientists tried to invent methods of fighting the ageing process. While I was working on the material, Vladimir Skulachev (biochemist, Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, famous for his studies in gerontology) published an article in a science magazine. The editor contacted me and asked me to prepare the material on Skulachev, since I was familiar with the subject. The interview with Maksim (Vladimir Skulachev’s son) was my first article in ‘The Russian Reporter’. After that I offered to prepare material on bitcoin for the magazine’s department of maps (materials presented as infographics), and the editor agreed. And then the value of the cryptocurrency skyrocketed to $3,000 (it was 2017), and the editor suggested that I should also write little heads up on bitcoin, not only infographics. Next was St Petersburg International Economic Forum where the President speaks about the necessity to develop the sphere of the digital economy. I was assigned to write about blockchain: if I can write bitcoin, then I know a thing or two about blockchain as well.

Then there was an interview with Akop Nazaretyan about the nature of human aggression. He put forward a hypothesis of ‘techno-humanitarian balance’, the idea of which is that with every new technological innovation society make a shift in behaviour. Roughly speaking, when people got lethal weapons, taboos like ‘thou shalt not kill’ were enunciated to prevent people from killing each other. Hardly had the interview been released, when the story of Harvey Weinstein and other unpardonable harassment came to light. And the editor asked me to write about it, since I had studied the questions of aggression and violence... This is how I wrote texts during the first year after finishing the courses.

So you started to write about biology, but then moved to other fields of knowledge?

It is ironic! I am a biologist by profession, and I thought I would write about biology. Although it is an extremely popular field in science communication, only around 30% of my texts are on biology. Most of the texts are on digital technologies. However, it is necessary to point out that even technical issues have something to do with biology. For example, social networks exploit basics of psychology and neurobiology. This is why even if I write about digital love, I make references to basic biological processes. I do not write about biology, but I mention it all the time.

What difficulties did you experience when writing on something other than biology?

At the beginning I might have been too self-confident. Having gathered the necessary information, having analysed the material, I used to ask experts if my conclusions were correct. Experts would say ‘no’. This is why now when I write articles I always seek professional advice. No matter how many articles I have read on a topic, if I am not an expert, I do not dare to draw conclusions myself.

Has anyone ever declined your offer to collaborate?

Fortunately, only one person refused to give me an interview, because they were not an expert in the field. On the contrary, all the scientists I have ever contacted with were happy to answer my questions. Even the most serious researchers treat science journalists kindly.

The Russian Academy of Sciences announced popularisation of science a priority. In his election agenda Alexander Sergeev (he was elected the president of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2017) stated that he wanted to make science more open and to speak more about it to the general public.

I had a curious situation that illustrates how well scientists receive journalists. Once I interviewed an academician. I asked him questions, listened to his answers, and took notes. In 15 minutes I realised that I had forgotten to switch on the voice recorder. I had to ask the academician to repeat what he had just said. He asked how far back he had to go. And the answer was: ‘From the very beginning’. The scientists sighed and repeated everything. Later I had to ask him for help again. And despite the confusion of our first encounter, he did not refuse to communicate with me.

Another good example is Akop Nazaretyan. He is a very prominent figure in the academic world. When we met I was an inexperienced science journalist. Before the interview I had only written two articles and one short interview. We talked for two hours and that interview turned out to be one of my best interviews ever. But I can’t take credit for it. It was thanks to Mr Nazaretyan who devoted so much time to me.

You took interest in science communication when you were a student. Why did you enter the Faculty of Biology, and what was your vision of the future back then?

I had neither expectations nor intention to become a biologist. I wanted to be a doctor with the possibility of academic work. At high school my teacher of biology tried to persuade me to become a scientist. When I was in grade 10 I enrolled in the Department of Pathophysiology of the Pavlov First St Petersburg State Medical University to write a research on cardiac ischemia. Having finished school, I applied to three universities including St Petersburg University (my priority was the programme ‘General Medicine’, but also ‘Dental Medicine’ and ‘Biology’). I had 270 points at the Unified State Exam, so according to the previous year’s requirements I should have had enough to enter all three universities. However, that year the admission requirements turned out to be very high, and I could get only to ‘Biology’.

I almost left the University in my first year of studies. There are too many subjects on biodiversity in the first year. You are given some hairy slime in the Petri dish and asked what it is. And it is Myxomycetes, a type of mould. You spend your whole life like this. You have to love flora and fauna very much to enjoy your first year at the University. This is why I wanted to quit the University and apply again to a different programme. I cannot say now what kept me from doing it. In the second year there were physiology and biophysics. I was really keen on those subjects. So I set a goal to find an issue which would be interesting to me and to write a final paper on it. I read a book ‘We are our brains: from the womb to Alzheimer’s’ by a Dutch neurobiologist Dick Swaab and realised that I liked the field of neurobiology. And I found the laboratory of neurobiology.

While working in the lab on my final research, I came to understand that the image of a scientist who cries ‘Eureka!’ every fifteen minutes is a far cry from real life. In reality you spend hours on end dripping something into test tubes and several years later you might dare to make a conclusion. Even when I was about to graduate from the University, I could not figure out if I wanted to become a biologist. This is why I decided to get a master’s degree hoping to understand what I wanted to be.

Only now, after six years of studies and five years in the laboratory, have I realised that I want to be a biologist. And I still have some doubts about it. However, what I do know is that being a scientist is not enough for me. I want to work in science communication, because this is what keeps science interesting. Scientific research is monotonous, whereas science communication means constantly learning new facts and participating in new events. And it makes you remember that science is great.

Now you do both: research and science communication. How do you manage to keep balance when you have a foot in both camps?

As a science journalist, I don’t write much compared to my colleagues who work full-time. Science communication for me is not a job, it is more of a creative outlet. Do you have a hobby? Some people dance, others run marathons, or collect post stamps, and I write articles. Also, even when you work in the lab colouring cells or investigating proteins, you have some spare time: sometimes you have to wait an hour or two until a chemical agent finishes working. In the meantime, you can read scientific literature on the studied subject, write abstracts, reports. And if there is no urgent work to do, I use this time to study or write something for science journalism. I have to switch from one thing to another all the time, and this is how I manage to do both.

Does your work as a journalist help you in your research?

Of course it does. First of all, when you work in the field of science, you work on a very narrow subject. Popular science helps you to keep yourself alive because you have to read a lot beyond your subject of research. Second, as I already mentioned, it maintains your love for science: it is very easy to lose interest in it when you work around the clock with a micropipette. Third, some things which I wrote about, like, for example, fighting the ageing process, are related to my research work. So it turned out useful.

What does science communication bring to your life?

It brings me joy. It is my passion. I fell in love with science journalism very accidentally. I would say it is more than just love. I am always happy to get an assignment, even if to finish it I will have to stay up nights. I am still very happy.

But why haven’t you quit science to work in journalism full time?

I think I lack confidence. When I started writing, my first topics were not about science. I studied in the USA on an exchange programme when I was at school. I knew that my classmates would ask me about my life there. That is why I started a blog. I had a lot of positive reviews. So when I came back I kept on writing. I had around 20 subscribers. Five of them would comment on my posts and would say my posts were great.

I was not sure if I had a knack for writing. I did not think my writing skills were enough to become a good journalist. At the same time, I knew that I loved biology and chemistry, and that I have an aptitude for science. So I chose that direction.

I still feel self-conscious when I write articles.

Even after you received awards in journalism?

It made it even worse, to tell the truth. Each award means a raised bar: editors, readers expect more from me, I expect more from myself. You can’t write mediocre articles after you have won a prize. You must only be great. Rarely do I have confidence that I am on par with these expectations. And working on new texts becomes more and more challenging.

In 2020 Maria Pazi won the RUSNANO Russian Sci&Tech Writer of the Year prize, which is held by the Association of Communicators in Education and Science (ACSON) and the RUSNANO’s Fund for Infrastructure and Educational Programmes and is the Russian stage of the European Science Journalist of the Year competition.

Nevertheless, the series of articles which brought you the prize hit the mark...

I wrote about science in everyday life. For example, the Tinder application is an everyday life thing, and so are social networking sites. Readers open an article and read about something very familiar, but at the same time they learn about the brain mechanisms of motivation and reward; or about an American psychologist Barry Schwartz (‘The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less’), who speaks about the paradox of choice. It proved to be a win-win combination: fundamental science and high tech about everyday life.

What are you working on now? What topics would you want to develop in your articles?

I continue writing about digitalisation of our life. I would like to see into the question of how digital technologies change our idea of death. Perception of death is an interesting part of our psychic. We do know that we are mortal, otherwise we would not have selfpreservation instincts. On the other hand, we cannot believe it too much, otherwise there would be no point in pursuing any goals. Religions give us some sort of a compromise in the form of an after world. However, it is just an idea, whereas digital technologies can offer you an after world that you can perceive. For example, there are memorial accounts. In 2019 one of them recreated in VR an image of a girl who had passed away for her Mother so that she could celebrate her daughter’s birthday and blow out candles on the cake. There are resources which allow to create your digital clone. Of course these technologies are not yet perfect, and virtual copies cannot replace a real human being. They do know how to transfer a person into the digital world. However, the first steps in that direction have already been taken. And it seems very interesting how it will affect the reality. A futurologist Ian Peerson believes that people will be more and more digitalised, and one day 90% of our personality will be downloaded in the ‘cloud’.

Maria, what is your advice to those who want to try a hand in science journalism?

I think everything is very simple: if you want to try a hand in science writing, just give it a go. Write something for yourself, for your friends on social media, create a blog. If you want to make podcasts about science, just go for it, if you want to record videos, draw cartoons or comic books — do it. There is nothing impossible. For example, two girls from my course became science journalists. Irina Bode published a book ‘Hippocrates is Not Happy’ (you can find more information about it in the article ‘Behind the scenes of evidence-based medicine’ in the ‘St Petersburg University’ magazine, No 5-6, 2019, pp. 56-59) and Anastasiya Pashutova co-wrote a children’s popular science book ‘I want to know everything about the New Year’. Unless you try it, you will never know whether you like it or not, whether you feel comfortable in this profession, and if the image of a science journalist suits the reality.