This week in my nutritional biochemistry class, we were required to write research papers and complete peer reviews of each others' papers. It scares me that, in this senior capstone class, my peers are still making rookie writing mistakes like using huge, redundant phrases where one word would do, or by misplacing commas of all things.
"But Ethan," you might say, "they're science majors! They aren't studying writing on the side like you are!"
"True," I would respond, "but shut up I'm still talking."
Many science majors, after graduating, inevitably will go on to do research in their field. And what do they do after that? They write scientific papers and get their research published. This means that they'll be writing fairly frequently, assuming they don't get fired. If they're going to be writing so much, shouldn't they be trained in writing?
Unfortunately, many universities don't require much in the way of training for these future writers. For most science majors, BYU itself only requires an additional 3 credit hours of advanced written communication after the freshman writing class—and its science-specific writing class is only recommended, so science majors may not even take it.
"So they suck at writing—what does it matter?" you might ask.
"It matters to who reads their writing," I'd say. "Now stop interrupting me."
Obviously I have to read sucky science writing, along with other science majors. Fortunately I've learned how to dissect relevant information from scientific articles ever since I began studying nutrition. But, even though I can do it, it still annoys me. Besides, science majors aren't the ones who are being hurt by this—unless you count the dead brain cells we used up trying to make sense of it all. You see, we still actually learn this cryptic information.
Poor science writing really ends up hurting the general public.
The general public doesn't know how to dissect relevant information out of these scientific articles like I do. Even if science writers had perfect grammar, they still use a lot of jargon and technical terms, simply making scientific writing inaccessible to the public. This is a problem (1) because the public won't be able to understand cutting-edge research that pertains to them, and (2) because poor writing leaves them ignorant and frustrated with scientists. I think it's obvious why my first point is a problem, especially when it comes to the health sciences, but let me explain my second point a little further.
Typically, scientists write for other scientists. They don't bother explaining things in terms the layman could understand, and even if they did, they often write in such an aesthetically confounding way that readers are hard-pressed to find any glimmer of meaning. Take this passage as an example:
"An intraperitoneal glucose tolerance test was performed in the overnight fasted offspring by administering glucose (250g/l) intraperitoneally as a bolus, at a dose of 1g/kg body weight" (Lagishetty, 2008).
If you're confused, this is what that means:
"After withholding food overnight, we injected a piece of glucose (250 grams per liter) into the rat pups' abdomens at a dose of 1 gram per kilogram of their body weight to see how well their cells would use the glucose."
That is a dramatic example, but it isn't anywhere close to the worst science writing I've ever read. Fortunately some science writers are gifted and write clearly, but "some" isn't enough.
This is the age of information. Scientists need to learn how to make their information accessible, or the public will continue to disregard it. Take vaccinations as an example. People fear what they don't understand—they distrust it. The majority of the public doesn't understand the science and research behind vaccinations. They instead turn to things that they do understand, even if those things are false. Now, this isn't exactly the scientists' fault, but they aren't helping either.
Yes, people in general should be more educated in the sciences. They should trust doctors and researchers—experts—when their evidence proves something right or wrong. For the best results, however, these experts need to make their research more accessible and more understandable. They need to be better trained in writing.
They need to stop making me suffer through their papers.
