writing

"The impact of depends critically on how well it is communicated to others. In most sciences, this means writing a scientific paper that other scientists will read. Perhaps you have done amazing experiments and think that this will guarantee success. However, without good writing, you may struggle to get your paper published and your brilliant experiments will not have the impact they deserve. Good writing can't save bad science, but bad writing can sink good science ..."

"… writing is one of the most inadequately developed of all the skills that scientists use in their research activities. Let us look briefly at the statistics: • 99% of scientists agree that writing is an integral part of their job as scientists. • fewer than 5% have ever had any formal instruction in scientific writing as part of their scientific training. • for most, the only learning experience they have is the example they get from the scientific literature that they read. • About 10% enjoy writing; the other 90% consider it a necessary chore. These figures are, of course, approximate but they come from informal surveys conducted over many years in many countries and, I believe, are close to reality."

"In 1953, Watson and Crick wrote a letter to that must be one of the most important publications in the biological sciences. ... It occupied just more than one page of the journal, including the references and the acknowledgements. It is a good example of clear scientific writing, and many of the principles of clear writing are well illustrated by their opening paragraph. We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of . This structure has novel features which are of considerable biological interest."

"Besides books, the other major predecessor and rival for communicating new science in the seventeenth century was the "learned letter," most famously illustrated by Galileo's letters on s and the . As the ideas of the scientific revolution spread in England and on the Continent, the accelerated pace of scientific activity compelled natural philosophers to communicate their recent findings through personal correspondence within and between countries. But these are not "letters" in the traditional sense of the word; authors wrote these epistles on some scientific or technical topic with the understanding that they would be passed on to others. Thus the actual intended audience was interested members of the scientific community at large, though short passages within them may personally address the primary recipient. To disseminate the information in these learned letters more efficiently, industrious scholars became centers for spreading the latest technical news at home and abroad. Their job was to receive letters, make copies, and pass them on to other interested scholars. After the emergence of , the job of "trafficker in intelligence" became more formalized in that the societies themselves appointed a secretary to handle correspondence and circulate newsworthy learned letters among society members and friends."

"The ability to endure rejection is a must. I began medical writing in the early 1970s while in small-town private practice. I had some early success in conducting clinical studies and seeing the results in print in respected journals. I also wrote some articles for controlled circulation, advertiser-supported journals, such as Medical Economics. Not everything I wrote was published. I also began writing health books for non-medical people, what the editors call the "lay audience." Here I collected so many rejection letters that I could have wallpapered a room with them. Only when I began writing and editing medical books did my acceptance rate become favorable. However, after 40 years of medical writing experience, I still receive rejections for clinical papers, editorials, and book proposals. And, yes, it still hurts. If you aspire to be a medical writer you will need determination. Being a writer takes a lot of effort and you really need to want to see your work in print."

"Nearly a quarter of a century ago I left the security of a well-paid and well-pensioned position to go on a mission to show doctors how much they — and their patients — would benefit from knowing the simple techniques of effective writing. As an editor on medical magazines for a decade, I had been surprised by much of what I had seen: winding texts of long and pompous words brought together in rambling sentences that obscured any sensible meaning. Here was a great opportunity, I thought, to pass on what I had learnt as a professional writer: that the best way to express clear and well-ordered thoughts was through clear and simple language. I was confident that within a year or two the culture would start to change, and instead of glibly trotting out phrases like Long-term medication is predicated, doctors would start writing: You may have to take these pills for a long time. To my surprise I met fierce resistance. 'You can't use simple words, they are for children'; ' Approximately is a proper scientific word; it would be wrong to write about '; 'Don't put We examined the patient; instead write, The patient was examined '. One exasperated public health doctor went so far as to say: 'We're doctors. We don't necessarily want people to understand what we are writing'."

"There is probably more bad writing in medical journals than in any other kind of periodicals. For this there is a variety of reasons. Medical men are without leisure, and there is so much in medicine about which something may be written, that they lose their way. Besides, it is a common delusion that the mere fact of attendance for four or five years upon lectures in a faculty of a university confers upon a man those qualitiies of aptitude, precision, and harmony, which are commonly called style. On the contrary, the pursuit of a single, dominating interest, as told the students of , limits a man's breadth of outlook and the range of his intellectual curiosity; it dulls his zest and diminishes his eagerness to know and integrate into himself the best that has been thought and written for the enrichment of his mind. In short, it is a bar to the perception of what is good and what is evil in the art of writing."

"Medical editors, however much they may disagree on scientific, social, or economic problems, will agree on one point: papers submitted for publication are, with few exceptions, badly written. The need for better medical writing is a perennial complaint: but what to do about it? One remedy is a book designed for self-study. Almost every year, publishers will bring out one or more volumes of this type, often helpful if used earnestly and critically. ... A second resource for improvement is the workshop or short course in writing. ..."

"Words matter in science that matters. Far too often, however, the words in medical literature are chosen and arranged without enough care. This leads to confusing, jargon-filled writing that is difficult to read, even for medical researchers. Not only is careless writing a barrier to publication, it makes it more difficult for peers to understand and build on other researchers’ work. Poor communication limits the impact of medical research, so clinicians and patients ultimately suffer as well. Vague and ambiguous clinical practice guidelines, for example, have been linked to medical errors and inconsistent interpretation. … Writing about complex medical research in plain language is challenging. Technical terms, acronyms and jargon, although used too frequently, cannot be avoided entirely. But the benefits — improved knowledge translation, less research waste — are too great for needlessly complicated writing to be accepted as inevitable. Medical educators, academic institutions and health care researchers have a duty to improve the quality of written communication to extend the reach of useful medical knowledge."

"Medical writing, like the treatments it describes, can be used to improve health but also has the potential to harm. Rudyard Kipling (Kipling, 1923) wrote that ‘words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind’, reminding us that writing has the power to change behaviours and attitudes. Medical writing therefore carries a heavy burden of responsibility. However, working with a powerful, or potentially dangerous, substance can be exhilarating. Another factor that makes medical writing such an interesting area is that it inhabits a strange boundary zone between science and art. Medical writing, especially reporting clinical trial results must be factual and objective. Certain aspects can undoubtedly be improved by following checklists and guidelines (Plint et al, 2006). Yet formulaic papers that report results dispassionately tend to be dry and uninteresting, while good papers should be inspiring and persuasive. But if the persuasive elements are taken too far or the arguments are not properly grounded in the findings, the report becomes biased and potentially misleading. Writers therefore walk a tightrope along what has been termed ‘the rhetoric of research’ (Horton, 1995; Schriger, 2005). They need to understand both the underlying science and the expressive art and to know where one should stop and the other begin."

"Presenting and communicating information effectively in any medical document is of paramount importance. The facts must be presented in such a way that they can be understood as intended. Many medical manuscripts are used for the diagnosis and treatment of patients: if they are misinterpreted, the consequences could be harm to the patient. Far too many errors that occur in medical practice are the result of poorly written documents, which in turn can result in miscommunication of information."

"Ante mare, et tellus, et, quod tegit omnia cœlum, Unus erat toto nature vultus in orbe, Quem dixere Chaos; rudis indigestaque moles."

"Velut egri somnia, vanæ Fingentur species, ut nec pes, nec caput uni Reddatur formæ."

"You can’t make a rope of sand."

"Ce que l'on concoit bien s’énonce clairement Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément."

"Ornate for the very reason that ornament had been neglected."

"A felicitous thought is as clearly exprest, And true words are not wanting in which it is drest."

"Like sick men’s dreams, when shadowy images appear, and nether head nor feet fit their respective forms."

"The practice of educated men is the best standard of language, just as the lives of the good are our pattern in morals."

"Don’t force your powers unduly, if you aim at a graceful effect."

"The subject of itself is incompatible with an ornamental style, content if it is able to instruct."

"Ne forçons point notre talent, Nous ne ferions rien avec grâce."

"Sumite materiam vestris, qui scribitis, æquam Viribus, et versate diu quid ferre recusent, Quid valeant humeri. Cui lecta potenter erit res, Nec facundia deseret hunc, nec lucidus ordo."

"Ornata hoc ipso, quod ornamenta neglexerant."

"Plus aloes quam mellis habet."

"He has in him more aloes than honey."

"Est brevitate opus ut currat sententia."

"Terseness there wants to make the thought ring clear."

"Ere sea, and land and heaven’s vault were made, Nature, throughout the globe, bore one aspect, Called chaos—a rude and undigested mass."

"Arenæ funis effici non potest."

"Cela doit être beau, car je n’y comprends rien."

"Verba nitent phaleris, at nullas verba medullas Intus habent."

"Occidit miseros crambe repetita magistros."

"His obscure style took with the shallower pates, (Not with the serious Greeks who ask for facts): For nothing captivates your dull man more Than dark, involved, mysterious verbiage."

"We aim at the ideal, and fail. I try To be concise, and end in being obscure."

"What is not clear (intelligible) is not French."

"Ce qui n’est pas clair, n’est pas Français."

"Decipimur specie recti; brevis esse laboro, Obscurus fio."

"Obscuris vera involvens."

"Cloaking the truth in mystery."

"That ought to be fine, for I don’t understand a word of it."

"Ornari res ipsa negat, contenta docere."

"The words make a fine show, but they have no pith in them."

"Consuetudinem sermonis vocabo consensum eruditorum; sicut vivendi consensum bonorum."

"Fungar vice cotis, acutum Reddere quæ ferrum valet, exsors ipsa secandi. Munus et officium, nil scribens ipse, docebo."

"Mine be the whetstone’s lot Which makes steel sharp, though cut itself will not. Although no writer, I may yet impart To writing folk the precepts of their art."

"Sæpe stilum vertas, iterum que digna legi sint Scripturus; neque te ut miretur turba labores, Contentus paucis lectoribus."

"Oh yes! believe me, you must draw your pen Not once or twice, but o’er and o’er again Through what you’ve written, if you would entice The man that reads you once to read you twice, Not making popular applause your cue, But looking to fit audience, although few."

"Good authors, take a brother bard’s advice: Ponder your subject o’er not once or twice, And oft and oft consider if the weight You hope to lift be, or be not too great. Let but our theme be equal to our powers, Choice language, clear arrangement, both are ours."

"Clarus ob obscuram linguam magis inter inanes Quamde graves inter Graios qui vera requirunt: Omnia enim stolidi magis admirantur amantque Inversis que sub verbis latitantia cernunt."