WHY do science stories often lack relatability? - Pitfalls of assumption in science writing!

Science writers spend a lot of time interacting with researchers and people from the mainstream academia. Science is based on logic and a lot of rational thinking, and the constant interactions with people immersed in this 'rational world' leads the writers to assume rationality in everything.

This default rational and logical approach causes the writing to reek of a scientific explanation for everything, and reflects the lack of relatability with the real world.

EXAMPLE

When writing a story about the situation of AIDS in a particular region, it is important to take into account that some patients may actually be consulting traditional healers in addition to the mainstream doctors. Asking relevant questions during the interactions with the doctor(s) may reveal some surprising facts such as a coordination between the doctors and the traditional healers to ensure that the patients do not suffer any contraindications of either prescriptions. Covering this not so 'rational' aspect in the writing could enhance the readers' trust for the medical system, thereby promoting open dialogue between doctors and patients.

Remember that the scientific aspect is only a part of a science story, not the whole story. The readers relate with the story and readership is enhanced when a holistic picture of the story is given.