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
> 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"
> 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
> 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.)
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,
More information about the Womenbio