A Science Reporter Asks: ‘Where Are the Aliens?’

Times Insider gives an inside look at how our journalism comes together.

Kenneth Chang has been a reporter for The New York Times for over a decade. Mr. Chang is a science reporter and has stood by at NASA launch sites. There is a chemist profiled by him. Nuclear fusion, the effort to reproduce the sun's power in a lab, and what that might mean for the future of energy are some of the things he has discussed with experts.

Before he became a reporter, Mr. Chang worked on a PhD in physics. He believes that experience gives him an idea of what he should be asking while on the job.

In an interview, Mr Chang talked about how he stays informed on his beat, the joy he still feels from reporting on a new discovery, and how he breaks down advanced concepts for readers. The interview has been changed.

Do you think this is a better time for a science reporter?

It's always fun. This is a big deal in fusion. The last few years have seen no big announcements in particle physics. There are a lot of areas where there are interesting things being done in solid state physics with strange metals.

There is a lot of different things happening at one time. There is always something new and surprising on the science beat.

Do you still have a sense of wonder or joy after covering the beat for a while?

I went to graduate school in hopes of becoming a physicist. The romantic idea of physics is that you want to understand the universe and that physics is trying to break it down to the most fundamental laws. There are a lot of big questions. I decided that I would be fine if someone else figured it out and told me the answer. I'm doing that.

When I was a graduate student, I didn't understand the equation or what my next step should be, but now that I'm doing these stories, I have a better understanding. It allows for wallowing in wonder as a job.

What are you most looking forward to doing?

The question of what was early Mars like is still relevant today. Life might have existed when that planet was cooler and wet. It's an understanding of what leads to life and what doesn't.

There is a parallel path of inquiry with planets. Thousands of planets can be seen by us. It is possible to find signs of oxygen in the atmosphere, but it is not conclusive proof of life. This is a level of inquiry that hasn't been done before. I don't know where the Aliens are.

Why does the universe exist? Someone will tell me that soon.

Image

What do you think about your beat?

Health is something that can kill you, technology is something that can kill you, and science is something that doesn't have any practical application.

Do you have a journalistic method for explaining headier topics?

I try to do enough interviews and digging to get a good understanding of it. If I can explain it well enough to someone else, I'm good to go. It becomes really, really difficult if I don't understand it. I have done a good job if I can explain it in a way that doesn't make it seem like it's being tortured. If it sounds vague, and I can tell that I am trying to skip over something and hope you don't notice, that means there is a gap in my knowledge as well.

Is your experience in physics useful?

I know more about how science is done. I can ask about the errors or if it's the first step out of 10 in what you want to discover. That makes a difference. A lot of science reporters don't have a science background It's useful.