For more information, visit the website of the National Association of Science Writers.
(2) Writing that reports scientific observations and results in a manner governed by specific conventions (a form of technical writing). Also known as scientific writing.
Examples and Observations (Definition #1):
- "Sustaining a dead body until its organs can be harvested is a tricky process requiring the latest in medical technology. But it's also a distinct anachronism in an era when medicine is becoming less and less invasive. Fixing blocked coronary arteries, which not long ago required prying a patient's chest open with a saw and spreader, can now be accomplished with a tiny stent delivered to the heart on a slender wire threaded up the leg. Exploratory surgery has given way to robot cameras and high-resolution imaging. Already, we are eyeing the tantalizing summit of gene therapy, where diseases are cured even before they do damage. Compared with such microscale cures, transplants--which consist of salvaging entire organs from a heart-beating cadaver and sewing them into a different body--seem crudely mechanical, even medieval."
(Jennifer Kahn, "Stripped for Parts." Wired, March 2003. Reprinted in The Best American Science Writing 2004, edited by Dava Sobel. HarperCollins, 2004)
- On Explaining Science
- The question is not "should" you explain a concept or process, but "how" can you do so in a way that is clear and so readable that it is simply part of the story?
- Use explanatory strategies such as . . .
- Active-voice verbs
- Analogies and metaphors
- Backing into an explanation, that is, explaining before labeling
- Selecting critical features of a process and being willing to set aside the others, as too much explanatory detail will hurt rather than help.
- People who study what makes an explanation successful have found that while giving examples is helpful, giving nonexamples is even better.
Nonexamples are examples of what something is not. Often, that kind of example will help clarify what the thing is. If you were trying to explain groundwater, for instance, you might say that, while the term seems to suggest an actual body of water, such as a lake or an underground river, that would be an inaccurate image. Groundwater is not a body of water in the traditional sense; rather, as Katherine Rowan, communications professor, points out, it is water moving slowly but relentlessly through cracks and crevices in the ground below us. . . .
- Be acutely aware of your readers' beliefs. You might write that chance is the best explanation of a disease cluster; but this could be counterproductive if your readers reject chance as an explanation for anything. If you are aware that readers' beliefs may collide with an explanation you give, you may be able to write in a way that doesn't cause these readers to block their minds to the science you explain.
- "In this paragraph I will state the main claim that the research makes, making appropriate use of 'scare quotes' to ensure that it's clear that I have no opinion about this research whatsoever.
"In this paragraph I will briefly (because no paragraph should be more than one line) state which existing scientific ideas this new research 'challenges.'
"If the research is about a potential cure, or a solution to a problem, this paragraph will describe how it will raise hopes for a group of sufferers or victims.
"This paragraph elaborates on the claim, adding weasel-words like 'the scientists say' to shift responsibility for establishing the likely truth or accuracy of the research findings on to absolutely anybody else but me, the journalist. . . ."
(Martin Robbins, "This Is a News Website Article About a Scientific Paper." The Guardian, Sep. 27, 2010)