Scientific writing revolution

Well, I always wanted to write a story in the form of a scientific paper, but this is way better.

How to write a scientific paper

17 January 2007

by Gregory Benford

A tongue-in-cheek guide to turning scientific jargon into a riveting read.

By Bea Realist
Department of Arcane Abstrusities, University of California, Irvine

References
1. 'Professorial Pathology' by E. U. Rieka, A. B. Surd and I. M. Pedant, Journ. Academic Backstabbing Vol 3, 1980.
2. Explaining Asimov (Twelve Volumes) by The National Academy of Sciences, 1981.

Abstract
A new formulation of the traditional academic paper is considered. The way scholars really read scientific papers is discussed. This paper itself is written in the new method herein proposed. Studies among the author's friends indicate that reading time for most scientific literature can be reduced three-fold by use of this method. For some papers, reading time approaches zero.

Read more...

Science in English 1: "a quantum leap"

This post is (hopefully) the first of a series about the use of scientific terminology in the vernacular. This is a topic that I've always found fascinating, mainly because it really clarifies how laypeople understand science.

Literally, the term quantum, from the Latin quantus ("how much"), refers to an indivisible amount of energy (but it hardly seems to mean that anymore, even in physics). An electron's quantum state describes its current properties; a quantum leap is a change in its properties.

In physics and chemistry (where I first encountered the term), a quantum leap refers to an electron's instantaneous movement from one energy state to another. The novel (when it was new, anyway) aspect of this theory is that this movement is discrete, rather than continuous, as was predicted by Newtonian physics.

The term quantum mechanics was coined in 1924 by Max Born. Since then, quantum physics has entered the mainstream. People talk about it and read news about it, even if (like me) they barely understand it, if at all. Originally, it was used somewhat correctly, referring to a sudden change, as opposed to a slow, evolved one.

Now, however, it's used all over the place, often to mean a very large change. Given that the term really refers to electrons, which are very small, I find this quite ironic. As they say, small things amuse small minds...

No right answer

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear," says Aragorn in Lord of the Rings, but to me the goalposts must have shifted somewhere along the way. In my lifetime, mainstream opinions about euthanasia, and abortion (to name two important examples) have changed drastically.

The article linked above describes the extreme measures that parents of a Ashley, a girl with serious brain damage, have taken to change their daughter's life. They have had her sterilised, so that she can't become pregnant if raped; removed her breast buds, so that she won't have the added discomfort of breasts; and given her growth hormones so that she will remain smaller and thus easier to transfer and care for.

They argue on their blog that they have done this to make her more comfortable and not for their own benefit; certainly they seem to be trying to provide her with the best environment possible. And of course, within reason, making things easier for oneself as a parent does make things better for the child.

In the Time article, the doctors looking after Ashley discuss their approach to this unusual case as doctors. Here's a quote that I think goes to the heart of the matter:

"I felt we were doing the right thing for this little girl—but that didn't keep me from feeling a bit of unease," admits Diekema. "And that's as it should be. Humility is important in a case like this."

There's no rule book for situations like this. And sometimes there just isn't a right answer. All you can do is weigh it up and make what seems to be the best decision. I don't know if Ashley's doctors did the right thing or not. Even they don't really know. In a sense, that's what medical ethics is about.

On my wishlist...

Another book about cloning, but this one does look good. It comes out this month and looks to be a good summary of the arguments for cloning.

From the review:

Herold was surprised by Professor Smith’s statement about the utility of therapeutic cloning. Of course there is a possibility that scientists will never succeed in generating patient-specific embryonic stem cells, but unless we do the research we will never know, she argues, adding: ‘As Einstein said, “If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?”’

Stem Cell Wars confronts the myriad arguments against this branch of science in a convincing and engaging way. Herold concludes the book by saying: ‘The idea of putting a freeze on progress because there are good and bad people in the world, because knowledge can be misused, or because we can’t always guarantee the outcome is an assault on the human spirit. It is living by our worst fears not our greatest hopes.’