Writing and science

Dr. Claire D. Sherman sherman at hell.niehs.nih.gov
Sun Jan 8 19:04:19 EST 1995


In article <19950108120223.oconne18 at thomashow-at.css.msu.edu>  
oconne18 at pilot.msu.edu  (Kevin P. O'Connell) writes:
> No, not at all.  However, if they changed oil in order to pay part of 
> their salaries and keep their labs afloat, and used car fixing as a  
medium
> for the exchange of ideas, then yup, I'd call them mechanics at least 
> part of the time.  I certainly did not wish to demean "the old-timers"  
in
> my comment about writing, and as for thinking, I figured that was just 
> part of the package of writing (now don't get cute here!).  Most faculty 
> members I know write about the science that is done in their labs and  
other
> labs in their field in order to sustain themselves and their labs.  I am
> also believe that science uncommunicated is science undone, which makes
> writing every bit as important in my view of science as pipetting.  
>  
> (Flame off.)
>  
> Kev 

To follow up on Kev's thoughts, I have been told the following 
advice by several colleagues:

"If it ain't been published, then it ain't been done!"

Therefore, writing and communication of scientific ideas
plays a big role in research.

Just my $0.02,

Claire



More information about the Womenbio mailing list