Click the appropriate "Submit" button below to submit a nomination or application for a CASW prize or fellowship or propose a Science + Science Writing session for the annual ScienceWriters conference.

To submit a letter on behalf of a candidate for a prize or fellowship, please select "Letter of support."

Applicants may also submit supporting letters as part of a nomination or entry package.

Applications for Taylor/Blakeslee Graduate Fellowships will be accepted on this site between January 1 and mid-March.

Entries for the Sharon Begley Science Reporting Award may be submitted between January 1 and April 30.

Entries for the Clark/Payne Award and Victor Cohn Prize may be submitted between January 1 and June 30. 

The application period for New Horizons in Science travel fellowships opens and closes in late summer each year, the datse varying depending on the conference schedule.

During December 2022 and January 2023, CASW will accept applications for a GEOTRACES Expedition Journalist Fellowship.

For additional details on fellowships and awards, visit the CASW website.

The Council for the Advancement of Science Writing is committed to improving the quality of science news reaching the public. CASW develops and funds programs to help reporters and writers produce accurate and informative stories about developments in science, technology, medicine and the environment and to enhance the quality, diversity, and sustainability of science journalism.

Questions? Contact Sylvia Kantor,


P.O. Box 17337

Seattle, WA 98127


Propose a "Science and Science Writing" session for the CASW New Horizons in Science portion of ScienceWriters2022.

Science writers are invited to propose a special session to discuss challenges or issues in covering science. Drawing on current topics in the news, "S+SW" sessions are intended as case studies of issues at the intersection of science, communication, and journalism. They also are intended to provide opportunities for open conversation between scientists and writers on topics that are controversial, ethically fraught, or otherwise difficult. Up to three selected sessions will be interwoven with the New Horizons in Science presentations.


  • Please propose a session that will run 60 to 75 minutes. Proposals should include an agenda that shows how that time will be allotted among the speakers and used to include audience engagement via Q&A or other means. Feel free to get creative with the format.
  • We plan for Science + Science Writing sessions to be given in person. If CASW's budget permits, a session may be webcast with questions taken online or recorded for later viewing.
  • Proposed presenters should include both scientists and science writers/communicators and can include discussants from outside those communities. Diverse—even divergent—voices, identities, opinions, and perspectives will make for a more engaging and fruitful discussion. Include affiliations, links to personal websites, and notes about the distinct perspective each speaker will bring to the topic. Indicate whether speakers have been contacted and have agreed to participate. 
  • Submissions should explain why the topic proposed is both interesting and timely in its own right and why it will serve as a case study that has broader relevance for science writers covering other fields. 
  • S+SW session organizers will be expected to moderate their session or to propose a moderator, who will be responsible for holding speakers to their allotted times. The CASW New Horizons Program Director will work with session moderators and speakers to refine the session plan, make necessary arrangements, and help manage the session. CASW will reimburse session participants for selected travel costs if they do not have other support for their travel to ScienceWriters2021.

Frequently Asked Questions

What kind of topics are appropriate? 

  • Those in which scientists are muzzled or reluctant to speak.
  • Those in which both writers and scientists must navigate social, cultural, political, and/or economic minefields.
  • Topics, including those involving misbehavior among researchers or their employers, that bring scientists, institutions, and journalists into frequent conflict.
  • Areas in which scientists, institutions, or other actors have “spun” coverage by manipulating journalists or public opinion.
  •  A recent egg-on-face case, where science writers or the media in general missed a big story, got it wrong, or failed to critically examine the evidence.

What kinds of proposals are not appropriate?

  • Discussions of craft suitable for the NASW workshop program.
  • Sessions intended to draw attention to an "undercovered area of science," especially those submitted on behalf of organizations seeking visibility for their area of interest.
  • Proposals that do not draw on current science.

What are examples of previous "Science and Science Writing" sessions?

  • ScienceWriters2021: Robin Lloyd organized and moderated "Covering COVID-19 through preprints, news releases, press conferences, and Twitter: How the pandemic has changed our reliance on peer review" (an online session archived here). Panelists included a Nature editor and two experts who analyze preprints, providing advice on how to sift good science from bad when science is pouring onto the internet prior to peer review.
  • ScienceWriters2020: Teresa Carr organized and moderated "Communicating about climate across political divides"  (an online session archived here), in which two expert climate communicators described communication techniques that effectively breach today's partisan divide. Max Boykoff, who heads up the Media and Climate Change Observatory at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and geologist and Yale Climate Connections contributor Karin Kirk presented insights that came from Boykoff's broad international survey and Kirk's first-person experiences.
  • ScienceWriters2019: Dan Vergano organized and moderated “The #CRISPRtwins story,” a S+SW session focusing on the role of scientists and journalists in the breaking science story of 2018: a Chinese researcher's claim that he had used CRISPR gene-editing technology to change the DNA of human embryos with the aim of making them immune to HIV. Sharing the stage with Vergano were Antonio Regalado, who broke the story in MIT Technology Review, and Marilynn Marchione, who covered it the same day for AP. Geneticist Kiran Musunuru of Penn’s School of Medicine provided insights into how scientists in the field responded to this massive ethical breach and the firestorm of criticism and concern that it sparked. 
  • ScienceWriters2018: Marilynn Marchione moderated a discussion on "The Wild West of stem cell therapy" on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the isolation of human embryonic stem cells. The session brought together a scientist-blogger, an FDA regulator, a public information officer (session co-organizer Terry Devitt), and a reporter to discuss policy controversies and challenges for PIOs and journalists through both a current-events and a historical lens.
  • ScienceWriters2016: Deborah Blum moderated a panel called "The next Flint crisis (and why there will be one." A resident of Flint, Michigan added an important dimension to this powerful session.

Directions for submitting

S+SW proposals should be uploaded to this site by midnight ET March 17. Please limit the description of the session and proposed speakers to 300 words.

This form may be used to upload:

  • a letter of support for a candidate for the Sharon Begley Science Reporting Award
  • a letter of support for a candidate for the Victor Cohn Prize for Excellence in Medical Science Reporting (to submit a nomination package, please use the Victor Cohn Prize form) 
  • a recommendation of an applicant for a Taylor/Blakeslee University Fellowship or Taylor/Blakeslee Project Fellowship
  • a recommendation of an applicant for a New Horizons travel fellowship
  • a letter on behalf of an applicant for the GEOTRACES Expedition Journalist Fellowship

To access the form, you will need to create a Submittable account.

For further information about deadlines, requirements for recommenders and nominators, and about the prizes and fellowships, see the CASW Awards and Fellowships page or contact Sylvia Kantor,

Applicants and nominees should not use this form to submit materials.

Council for the Advancement of Science Writing