Life of a Lab Rat

(now the ears of my ears awake and
now the eyes of my eyes are opened)

When Ricardipus isn't whinging about his inability to manage his time, he's making comments on other people's weblogs.

He makes the very good point that the general public is never going to read science weblogs, but is tied to 'conventional' (as opposed to nuclear? I think we should be told) media. My thesis is that 'conventional' journalists probably are not going to have the time nor the inclination to use material from those same weblogs, so it all seems a bit pointless. However, I prefer e. e. cummings over Susan Musgrave and am more optimistic than Ricardipus, both when it comes to time management and the effects of science weblogs.

Journalists who report on science generally have to make do with press releases and interviews with heads of labs, from which they need to distill pithy soundbites. These are frequently misrepresented (deliberately or accidentally) and devoid of important context. We know that the scientific literature is impenetrable and execrably written and that this makes it difficult for scientists themselves, let alone the educated layman, to understand published work. Believe me, this week I am editing undergraduate theses and I know, I just know there must exist a compulsory Pompous and Ineffectual Writing 101 course.

What hope, then? What hope for the layman or the trained writer crafting a press release to understand the primary literature? What hope for editors of school textbooks to get the science right? What hope for seeing balanced and accurate science writing in the papers?

Weblogs.

Hang on a minute BK, what are you smoking? you might well ask. Bear with me.

Dr Ludbrook says

It seems to me that there are two components to writing well in science and medicine. The first, and most fundamental, is the need for a solid grounding in English grammar, usage and style.

This obviously starts at school, and we might in a moment of heady optimism imagine that universities offer writing courses that actually are effective. But this involves time and money, and is probably too late for most of us.

Ludbrook suggests that we should make use of freelance editors. This is obviously a marketing ploy and I shall pay it no further attention. But here's the crux:

The second is constant practice in writing, especially in the format required by biomedical journals.

"Constant practice in writing". Now we see how weblogs can be useful. Not necessarily as a means of direct or indirect (via traditional media) communication with 'the public', but as a tool for improving writing.

If practice makes perfect, then write to get better at writing. I don't know if he does it with this aim in mind, but Ian's weblog is a fantastic example of writing about science constantly, with no hope of reaching the 'general public'. But Ian has succeeded in making immunology more accessible to me, and I bet his writing has improved because he does it.

I'll be the first to proclaimadmit that a lot of the 'science' weblogs out there are terrible, and that the authors would rather take cheap shots at people who disagree with them than actually tackle anything with substance. But the beauty of the weblog format is the opportunity for feedback, for instant peer review. Which means that you and me, the readers, have the chance to point out that someone is being unintelligible, or overly verbose, or stupid, or narrow-minded. And maybe, when they learn to write betterer as a result, when they write their papers or their summaries for the PR office, they'll thank you.

In the meantime (because this won't happen overnight), if you're writing a weblog, or a paper, or a school newsletter, then check out this little Flesch-Kincaid readability gadget. I should run it on these theses and see if I can break it.

Pithy soundbite: Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it has to be crap.