Now in its 37th year, CASW’s Evert Clark/Seth Payne Award was created to recognize the contributions to journalism of both Ev Clark and Seth Payne.

The award is intended to encourage young science writers by recognizing outstanding reporting and writing in any field of science by a writer aged 30 or younger. The 2026 winner will receive $1,000 and a certificate.

The annual deadline for submission of nominations is June 30. Submissions are judged by a panel of science writers and scientists selected by CASW. Entries will be judged on the basis of accuracy, clarity, insightfulness, fairness, resourcefulness, and timeliness. For full details, see the Rules and Eligibility page.      

All applications and submissions must be received by June 30, 2026.        

Please note that judges consider only the candidate's submitted work when making their selection. Do not upload any materials (such as a recommendation letter or resume) other than journalism produced by the candidate.

The award is given in memory of Ev Clark, a veteran journalist at Business Week, The New York Times and Newsweek, and Seth Payne, his long-time friend and colleague at Business Week and a founder of the award. It is designed to carry on the work of both men, who offered friendship and advice to generations of young journalists.

How to Enter 

You may access the nomination form after you create an account and click "Create Account and Continue" below.        

Questions about the process? Contact Laura Dattaro.

CASW established the Victor Cohn Prize for Excellence in Medical Science Reporting in 2000. Given annually, the prize seeks to honor a writer for a body of work published or broadcast within the last five years which, for reasons of uncommon clarity, accuracy, breadth of coverage, enterprise, originality, insight and narrative power, has made a profound and lasting contribution to public awareness and understanding of critical advances in medical science and their impact on human health and well-being.

Beginning in 2023, the Cohn Prize is generously underwritten by Michelson Philanthropies, a Los Angeles-based philanthropic foundation devoted to supporting medical research, equity in education, and improving animal welfare.

The honoree receives an award of $5,000 and a certificate.

The annual deadline for submission of nominations is June 30. For full details, see the Rules and Eligibility page. 

An account is required to submit. After you click "Create Account and Continue," you will be able to access the submission form.

If you are a nominator or supporter wishing to submit only a letter in support of a candidate, use the Letter of Support submission form.

If you have been nominated in a previous year and would like to update your nomination materials, please contact Laura Dattaro.

Questions? Contact Laura Dattaro.

The Council for the Advancement of Science Writing offers fellowships of $6,000 to working journalists and students of outstanding ability who have been accepted for enrollment in graduate-level programs in science writing. One candidate interested in covering the physical sciences—such as physics, astronomy, or chemistry—will receive an enhanced fellowship that also includes mentorship from a senior journalist and additional travel funding for reporting projects.

The annual deadline for applications is mid-March, with the specific date announced in early January. For the 2026-27 academic year, the deadline is March 16, 2026. For full details, see the Rules and Eligibility page.

If you are a recommender wishing only to submit a letter in support of an applicant, please use the Letter of Support form.

To apply online, fill out the form on the next page and upload:

• Resume
• Samples of your writing
• A brief letter of recommendation from a teacher or someone who knows you. (Alternatively, the recommender can submit the letter using the Letter of Support form.) Up to two additional letters of support may be submitted.
• If you are applying for the enhanced fellowship for a student interested in covering the physical sciences, a brief statement of your background and interest in writing about physical science.

Note to applicants: The selection committee focuses on the overall quality of your application, not its length. Your personal statement should have the length that you feel is best for you. Concise writing is a valuable trait for a journalist. 

As Mark Twain put it: "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead."

Questions? Contact Laura Dattaro.

Propose a "Science and Science Writing" session for the CASW New Horizons in Science portion of ScienceWriters2026. Science writers are invited to propose a panel session to discuss challenges or issues in covering science. Drawing on current or recent 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.

Guidelines

• 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.
• CASW anticipates Science + Science Writing sessions will be held in person if at all possible.
• Please propose a session that will run 60 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.
• Three people, plus the moderator, is a good number for a panel. Proposed presenters should include both scientists/experts and science writers/journalists 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. 
• 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 provide complimentary registration and reimburse moderators and panelists for selected travel costs if they do not have other support for their travel to ScienceWriters2026.

Frequently Asked Questions 

What kind of topics are appropriate?

• Those in which scientists are muzzled or reluctant to speak.
• Those in which both journalists 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?

• ScienceWriters2023: CASW’s New Horizons director organized a panel discussion on “Mistrust and misinformation after Ohio’s toxic train disaster,” covering the role of local reporters and other journalists in communicating the rapidly changing story of the East Palestine crash to an audience sometimes distrustful of experts and journalists. ProPublica’s Sharon Lerner moderated the panel featuring Purdue University expert Andrew Whelton, economist Nick Messenger, and local radio reporter Stephanie Czekalinski. Video is available here. 
• ScienceWriters2022: Jane Qiu organized “A critical reflection on media coverage of SARS-CoV-2’s origins.” Deborah Blum moderated the panel that included discussants Qiu, an independent journalist in China, Science correspondent Jon Cohen, investigative journalist Katherin Eban, and science and technology expert Benjamin Hurlbut from Arizona State University. See video here.
• 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). 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 11:59pm ET March 24. 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

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 Laura Dattaro, ldattaro@casw.org.