Scientific Style

The style of scientific writing differs greatly from writing in the humanities. In the sciences, sentences are short, direct, and only rarely lack a terminal citation. Ornate language is specifically avoided. To a student versed in the humanities, scientific writing may seem to be a very “Dick and Jane” style. An example taken from a first-year student paper will illustrate the point:

!For Centuries, man has employed his own ingenuity to advance his circumstances via the natural environment that was available to him. From the invention of the wheel, to the Industrial Revolution, to recent cures for diseases, man’s intellect has pushed the borders of nature to serve his purpose. Just as man has progressed transportation from horse and buggy to motor vehicles, science is continuing to manipulate nature, moving from the borders of the natural, to that which is ‘man-made’. Currently, this is manifesting in the case of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) – organisms manipulated via scientific intervention to produce a specific and desired result.”

This introduction should be re-written much more succinctly, and with appropriate in-text citations:

*Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms that are deliberately altered to contain DNA from another species (Federof and Brown, 2004). Such alterations are often performed to alter a trait of an organism for a commercial purpose (Atherton, 2003). While some argue that GMO technology is a natural continuation of selective breeding, the production and marketing of GMOs remains a controversial topic (Schurman and Kelso, 2003).

Another major stylistic difference between the humanities and the sciences is how sources are presented. In the humanities, the person behind the source, and the respect that person has in the field, is paramount. For example, an essay on reformation theology will carry much more weight if it cites Luther and Calvin compared to lesser-known theologians. In the text of such an essay, the specific sources will be emphasized, and often relatively long passages will be block-quoted word-for-word:

“Calvin, in his highly influential work Institutes of the Christian Religion, makes the point convincingly: ‘I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all visible representations of every kind are unlawful. But as sculpture and painting are gifts of God, what I insist for is, that both shall be used purely and lawfully,—that gifts which the Lord has bestowed upon us, for his glory and our good, shall not be preposterously abused, nay, shall not be perverted to our destruction. We think it unlawful to give a visible shape to God, because God himself has forbidden it, and because it cannot be done without, in some degree, tarnishing his glory. (Institutes, Book I).’ Thus Calvin would argue strongly against the use of iconography as a means to glorify God.”

This tendency in the humanities is valid, for the “data” of a humanities paper is opinion and argument; thus the respect and influence an author has achieved is relevant. Not so in the sciences. Scientific writing aims for objectivity: thus the data produced by a well-known scientist is no more or less valid than the data produced by an unknown scientist. What matters is whether the data was obtained scientifically (i.e. with the proper use of experimental controls and adequate reproducibility). The effect this has for scientific writing is that the source is not emphasized, and the material is not quoted, but paraphrased.

!Note: word-for-word quoting of any kind is unacceptable in scientific writing; it constitutes plagiarism.

A second example taken from a student paper will illustrate the point. In this case, the student has paraphrased and cited correctly, but has placed undue emphasis on the source:

“Apart from producing larger amounts of food and reducing the amount spent on harmful pesticides, genetically modified foods make it easier to produce nutritious foods in large quantities. For example, a research group at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences has created a type of rice that is rich in beta-carotene (Neilson, 2003). This crop, known as golden rice, could provide a cheap way to provide third world countries with a more balanced food.”

The emphasis placed on whom has done the research is unnecessary and distracting. Note the differences when this passage is re-written in concise, scientific prose:

“Apart from producing larger amounts of food and reducing the amount spent on harmful pesticides, genetically modified foods make it easier to produce nutritious foods. For example, rice modified to produce beta-carotene is now available and has been used to improve nutrition in third-world countries (Neilson, 2003).