TSR Med Students' Society Part IV

I'm becoming increasingly irritated by scientists and their inability to write at a consistent detail level. Maybe I'm just grumpy of late, but I've noticed it in papers and textbooks. Waffle on for ages about the obvious bit that everyone gets and rush over the more complicated, esoteric sections as though they're scared to explain.

I'm currently grappling with a paper on the mouse model I'll be using as the basis of my project this year. The authors clearly define things like autoimmunity and waffle on for ages making it easily accessible to a non-expert. Then they go on a few sentences later to write about the development of this line of mice in jargon that you'd only know if you were properly involved in that area, essentially eradicating that accessibility and making it difficult for newbies. Why spend so much time writing accessibility-promoting waffle only to follow it with annoying esotericism?

There needs to be some kind of brevity and clarity movement in science.

/rant

I totally get where you're coming from here. Scientists and science students* are probably the worst writers on the planet - reading and analysing journal articles used to be the bane of my life simply because most scientists don't seem capable of writing a) in engaging prose and/or b) without using excessive amounts of jargon and leaving it up to the poor reader to decipher the methodology or discussion, especially when it involved referring to other authors and studies. It's a massive pain and ultimately one of the (many) reasons why I massively prefer medical school to science (where so many of the references used both at BSc and MSc were drawn from journals).


*I was one exception, though I made up for my excellent writing skills with very average lab skills

Do you think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Students are encouraged to emulate the way science is written in journals when writing their projects etc. up.

To some extent certainly, however I'd also argue that a lot of it is due to the background of the students themselves: comparatively few science students (except perhaps in psychology/geography) do humanities or social science subjects at A level e.g. history, literature, philosophy etc and since A level sciences don't involve much extended writing (unlike at degree level), there's no opportunity for skills and abilities in writing to develop.

There is an unfortunate culture amongst science students of looking down on arts subjects and occasionally arts students themselves...which tends to make science students forget that in some areas e.g. writing, the arts students definitely have a lot to offer.

I'm becoming increasingly irritated by scientists and their inability to write at a consistent detail level. Maybe I'm just grumpy of late, but I've noticed it in papers and textbooks. Waffle on for ages about the obvious bit that everyone gets and rush over the more complicated, esoteric sections as though they're scared to explain.

I'm currently grappling with a paper on the mouse model I'll be using as the basis of my project this year. The authors clearly define things like autoimmunity and waffle on for ages making it easily accessible to a non-expert. Then they go on a few sentences later to write about the development of this line of mice in jargon that you'd only know if you were properly involved in that area, essentially eradicating that accessibility and making it difficult for newbies. Why spend so much time writing accessibility-promoting waffle only to follow it with annoying esotericism?

There needs to be some kind of brevity and clarity movement in science.

/rant

EDIT:

And a freedom of information movement (this does seem to be something that's included in the zeitgeist though, thankfully). What's the point of having published science that is inaccessible to entire institutions of students?

I was told that the definition of an expert is 'someone who explains things in such a confused way so as to make you feel the confusion your own fault.'

To some extent certainly, however I'd also argue that a lot of it is due to the background of the students themselves: comparatively few science students (except perhaps in psychology/geography) do humanities or social science subjects at A level e.g. history, literature, philosophy etc and since A level sciences don't involve much extended writing (unlike at degree level), there's no opportunity for skills and abilities in writing to develop.

There is an unfortunate culture amongst science students of looking down on arts subjects and occasionally arts students themselves...which tends to make science students forget that in some areas e.g. writing, the arts students definitely have a lot to offer.

You make a very good point, but I think being able to explain science clearly is a very different skill to those honed in humanities subjects. I think the biggest problem that scientific literature suffers from is the lack of empathy for its target audience; either assuming that the readers are already experts in a field, or that they are idiots and therefore incapable of grasping the full details.

I'm becoming increasingly irritated by scientists and their inability to write at a consistent detail level. Maybe I'm just grumpy of late, but I've noticed it in papers and textbooks. Waffle on for ages about the obvious bit that everyone gets and rush over the more complicated, esoteric sections as though they're scared to explain.

I'm currently grappling with a paper on the mouse model I'll be using as the basis of my project this year. The authors clearly define things like autoimmunity and waffle on for ages making it easily accessible to a non-expert. Then they go on a few sentences later to write about the development of this line of mice in jargon that you'd only know if you were properly involved in that area, essentially eradicating that accessibility and making it difficult for newbies. Why spend so much time writing accessibility-promoting waffle only to follow it with annoying esotericism?

There needs to be some kind of brevity and clarity movement in science.

/rant

EDIT:

And a freedom of information movement (this does seem to be something that's included in the zeitgeist though, thankfully). What's the point of having published science that is inaccessible to entire institutions of students?

I was with you for the bits in bold.
Then you started using really big complicated words towards the end of the rant which confused and upset me.

I was told that the definition of an expert is 'someone who explains things in such a confused way so as to make you feel the confusion your own fault.'

You make a very good point, but I think being able to explain science clearly is a very different skill to those honed in humanities subjects. I think the biggest problem that scientific literature suffers from is the lack of empathy for its target audience; either assuming that the readers are already experts in a field, or that they are idiots and therefore incapable of grasping the full details.

So true. There's an immunology book by Sompayrac that I think does exactly that (despite the positive reviews). Instead of clear descriptions it just makes things patronising (calling macrophages 'garbage cells' and producing a 'hot dog' analogy for the MHCs, for instance), which doesn't help. Metaphors for the sake of metaphors don't ease explanations.

just ordered my stethoscope exciting times!