Science Politics is looking for submissions that describe compelling and timely challenges in science and technology. 

We invite you to move beyond diagnosis to insight and help readers understand not just what’s happening, but why it matters and what should come next. We are looking for you to offer takeaways, policy implications, or forward-looking ideas.
Our contributors include social and natural scientists, journalists, policymakers, and emerging voices , but we are open to anyone who can speak with authority on our topic areas, including energy, technology, environment, health, food, and space.

Guidelines

You are invited to submit 2,500-word articles or 800-word opinion pieces that communicate your work and insights to a general audience, including policymakers. 

Imagine you are speaking to someone from another discipline who doesn’t know about your field but would like to learn more, and potentially follow your advice. 

We also ask that, instead of dwelling on what’s not working, authors focus on what’s possible. In your pitch or submission, please begin with a solution or a suggestion. 

Our team will get back to you within about a week. If your research and expertise are a strong fit for Science Politics but the draft isn’t accessible or solutions-oriented, we might invite you to either rewrite it or submit a different piece.

Alternatively, we might share editing suggestions in the original document for your review.

If you don’t hear from us after a week, you’re welcome to follow up.

Submission Types

Articles (1,500-2,000 words)

For now, we are considering completed article drafts or brief pitches on a rolling basis.

Articles can:

• Present original research with clear arguments for a broad policy audience,
• Analyze a policy or technological issue, and/or
• Reflect critically on dominant paradigms, narratives, or values shaping science and technology policy.

For articles, email the entire piece or a pitch to sciencepolitics@georgetown.edu.

Opinions (700-800 words)

Opinions address something happening in the news or a topic in the current public conversation. 

They can take many forms, including:

• Blending scholarship and personal experience,
• Weighing the potential risks and rewards of a policy,
• Reframing an issue from a problem-focused to a solutions-oriented perspective, and/or
• Taking a counterintuitive stand. 

For opinions, email the entire piece to sciencepoliticsopinion@georgetown.edu.

Writing Advice

• Write simply. Use plain, direct language. Avoid technical or bureaucratic jargon unless it’s essential — and explain it when you do. Your piece should be understandable to an informed reader outside your field, whether that’s a scientist reading about policy or a policymaker reading about science.
• Write across divides. Science Politics is a nonpartisan publication. We welcome ideas from across the political spectrum — left, right, and center — as long as they are grounded in evidence and respectful engagement. We value pieces that help  readers see across ideological, disciplinary, or national boundaries.
• Be interdisciplinary. The best submissions show how developments in one domain — technology, environment, health, or security — translate into others. We’re especially interested in authors who can connect dots across sectors or communities that  don’t usually talk to each other.
• Make it actionable and forward-looking. Move beyond diagnosing the problem to illuminating what might actually work. Focus on solutions. Is someone already taking an approach that seems promising? If not, what could? Even in uncertain or difficult situations, Science Politics aims to flood the zone with good ideas. Help readers understand why the issue matters and what should come next by offering clear takeaways, policy implications, or constructive, forward-looking insights.

Advice for Pitches

If you choose to pitch an article, please address the following in no more than 300 words.

• Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF): Open with your core argument or main claim — a single sentence capturing what your piece will argue or reveal.
• Timeliness and relevance: Why this issue matters now and why it matters for the public, policymakers, or the science-policy community.
• Evidence and approach: What data, research, or examples you plan to discuss.
• Author background: Who you are and what gives you credibility or insight into this topic.

Please note, writers cannot use the output from generative AI tools and features as a substitute for your own creativity and work product. We do not accept submissions that use unedited or lightly edited generative AI content as your own work product. While you can use generative AI to conduct research, you are ultimately responsible for the accuracy of your work.