untitled

Scientific writing can go one of two ways, interpretable or the opposite. I feel the “middle ground” in scientific writing is under or less represented than writing of other backgrounds – you either get the message or you don’t. It is difficult for a research scientist to step out of a world filled with acronyms and lab jargon to get a relatively (in most cases) simple idea across to the general public. This might be the most challenging task that scientist face today. Whether it is information the researcher is trying to convey through a talk or presentation, write-up or report of some fashion, we are challenged by the task of relaying information. It is possible that the ideas and information come so clearly to researchers in this field because we live in a world that is riddled with simple and complex variants of the central dogma. The same could be said for any professional that finds his or her work inherently and naturally understandable because they are engulfed in the world. Relaying complex information’s requires one to step back, and ask what is the take home message here, and how can I get to that point as clearly and concisely as possible? I have learned that making analogies to my research to be one of the more effective methods of describing my research to people outside of the scientific community.