Writing in/for the Sciences Kevin Brock Department of English Language and Literature University of South Carolina presentation materials available at:

Writing in/for the Sciences

Kevin BrockDepartment of English Language and LiteratureUniversity of South Carolina

presentation materials available at:http://www.brockoleur.com/writing/writing-sciences/

2


1. Fundamental Considerations for Writinga) Rhetorical Appeals

2. Rhetorical Genres

3. Science Writing

a) The Academic Introduction

i. CARS in Action

b) The Grant Proposal

i. A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal

4. Conclusions

5. Further Reading

3

Fundamental Considerations for Writing

Who are you writing to/for?

What do you know about this audience's expectations?

Why is this issue worth talking about here and now, in this way?

What do you want your audience to do as a result of encountering your text?

4


1. Fundamental Considerations for Writing

a) Rhetorical Appeals2. Rhetorical Genres

3. Science Writing


i. CARS in Action



4. Conclusions

5. Further Reading

5

Rhetorical Appeals

Ethos: an appeal to the writer's character (moral quality, authority, credibility, etc.)

Logos: an appeal to reason or logic (including situational logics like ideologies and 'common sense' for specific populations)

Pathos: an appeal to the emotional or non-rational preferences of the audience

Writers generally use a combination of at least two of these appeals in any given text.

6

Rhetorical Appeals

Rhetorical appeals can also exist outside written text. Visual rhetoric in particular plays a key role in science writing.

How does the inclusion of certain visual data influence how an audience might respond to your overall argument?

What kind of visualization are you more or less inclined to accept as valid when you look at it?

When and where in a text might visual elements be more or less powerful in regards to influencing the persuasive nature of your argument?

7

Visual Rhetoric

Compare the graph to the right with the two graphs below.

Which is the more persuasive approach?

(Niemantsverdriet 2008)

8

Rhetorical Appeals

The enthymeme is a central tool for writers as a means of persuading audiences to complete logical equations (syllogisms) left unfinished by a writer.

The classic example of an enthymeme:

Socrates is a human.

Therefore, he is mortal.

9

Rhetorical Appeals

The enthymeme is a central tool for writers as a means of persuading audiences to complete logical equations (syllogisms) left unfinished by a writer.

The classic example of an enthymeme:

Socrates is a human.

Therefore, he is mortal.

[Unstated premise: Humans are mortal.]

10



a) Rhetorical Appeals

2. Rhetorical Genres3. Science Writing


i. CARS in Action



4. Conclusions

5. Further Reading

11

Rhetorical Genres

Genres are categories of texts recognizable through shared features to particular communities.

These recognizable features are called conventions and slowly change over time as community memberships change.

Example non-academic writing genres:

Class syllabus Trailer for a romantic comedy Grocery list Instructions to create a social network account

What can we recognize about the rhetorical conventions of a given genre?

12





3. Science Writinga) The Academic Introduction

i. CARS in Action



4. Conclusions

5. Further Reading

13

Science Writing

Science writing is, for the most part, not objective in nature and, when it comes to academic writing, not primarily logical.

Instead, combinations of ethos, logos, and pathos help writers in the sciences persuade their audiences to accept (among other concerns):

The significance of a given study

The connection between a study and prior findings

The expertise of the author(s) in competently performing a study

For more, see: Penrose and Katz 2010; Ceccarelli 2001.

14

Science WritingScience writing involves deliberation (debate, discussion, persuasion) to construct facts, which grow out of paradigmatic changes in how we understand the universe (e.g., Einstein's Theory of Relativity, the 18th c. Chemical Revolution, and Mendelian genetic inheritance). For more, see Kuhn 1996; Latour 1987.

(Image from Latour 1987, p. 12.)

15





3. Science Writing

a) The Academic Introductioni. CARS in Action



4. Conclusions

5. Further Reading

16

The Academic Introduction

Academic introductions, across numerous disciplines, generally perform a shared series of rhetorical strategies to persuade scholarly audiences of the value of the topic under discussion.

John Swales, a rhetoric scholar who studies genre, describes the generic structure of academic introductions through a model called 'Creating a Research Space,' or CARS. (Swales 2008)

17

Creating a Research Space1. Establish a research territory.

a) claim centrality/significance, and/or

b) place your research within the field and/or

c) review items of previous research

2. Establish a niche.

a) make a counter-claim, or

b) indicate a gap in existing research, or

c) raise one or more questions about existing research, or

d) continue a tradition

3. Occupy the niche.

a) outline the purpose of the text or state the pursued research, or

b) announce the principle findings, or

c) indicate the research article structure

18





3. Science Writing


i. CARS in Actionb) The Grant Proposal


4. Conclusions

5. Further Reading

19

CARS in Action

Let's look at a text that I've been told you're likely familiar with:

Porter DC, Farmaki E, Altilia S, Schools GP, West DK, Chen M, Chang B, Puzyrev AT, Lim C, Rokow-Kittell R, et al. 2012. Cyclin-dependent kinase 8 mediates chemotherapy-induced tumor-promoting paracrine activities. PNAS [Internet] 109(34): 13799-13804. Available from: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/34/13799.long doi:10.1073/pnas.1206906109

20

CARS in Action

Rhetorical move #1: 'Establish a territory.'

Chemotherapy and radiation therapy not only kill tumor cells but also induce tumor-promoting paracrine activities in the tumor environment, which may decrease treatment efficacy and contribute to de novo carcinogenesis. These paracrine effects include the promotion of tumor formation (1), stimulation of angiogenesis (2, 3), metastasis (4), tumor resistance to chemotherapy (5), and secretion of multiple tumor-promoting cytokines in vivo (6) and in vitro (7). These damage responses also occur in the stromal components of solid tumors (endothelial cells and fibroblasts), where they are mediated by p53 (8, 9).

21

CARS in Action

Rhetorical move #1: 'Establish a territory.'

Chemotherapy and radiation therapy not only kill tumor cells but also induce tumor-promoting paracrine activities in the tumor environment, which may decrease treatment efficacy and contribute to de novo carcinogenesis. These paracrine effects include the promotion of tumor formation (1), stimulation of angiogenesis (2, 3), metastasis (4), tumor resistance to chemotherapy (5), and secretion of multiple tumor-promoting cytokines in vivo (6) and in vitro (7). These damage responses also occur in the stromal components of solid tumors (endothelial cells and fibroblasts), where they are mediated by p53 (8, 9).

Rhetorical copia in action.

22

CARS in Action

Rhetorical move #2: 'Establish a niche.'

Transcriptional activation of some tumor-promoting genes in drug-damaged cells was decreased upon the knockout of p21 (CDKN1A), a cell-cycle inhibitor induced, primarily by p53, in response to different types of damage and at the onset of senescence (11). p21 expression from an inducible promoter in HT1080 fibrosarcoma cells activated transcription of multiple damage-responsive tumor-promoting genes and produced mitogenic and antiapoptotic activities in conditioned media (10). p21 expression up-regulates not only cancer-associated genes but also different proteins implicated in age-related diseases (10), and it stimulates viral promoters […] Aside from the CDKs, p21 interacts with many transcription factors and cofactors (20). p21-induced transcription was shown to be mediated in part through transcription factor NF-κB (16, 17), but the mechanism of NF-κB stimulation by p21 is not yet fully understood.

23

CARS in Action

Rhetorical move #2: 'Establish a niche.'

Transcriptional activation of some tumor-promoting genes in drug-damaged cells was decreased upon the knockout of p21 (CDKN1A), a cell-cycle inhibitor induced, primarily by p53, in response to different types of damage and at the onset of senescence (11). p21 expression from an inducible promoter in HT1080 fibrosarcoma cells activated transcription of multiple damage-responsive tumor-promoting genes and produced mitogenic and antiapoptotic activities in conditioned media (10). p21 expression up-regulates not only cancer-associated genes but also different proteins implicated in age-related diseases (10), and it stimulates viral promoters […] Aside from the CDKs, p21 interacts with many transcription factors and cofactors (20). p21-induced transcription was shown to be mediated in part through transcription factor NF-κB (16, 17), but the mechanism of NF-κB stimulation by p21 is not yet fully understood.

24

CARS in Action

Rhetorical move #3: 'Occupy the niche.'

The ability to reproduce transcriptional damage response and its paracrine effects by inducible p21 expression in HT1080 cells, without DNA damage (10), offers a unique system to identify “druggable” mediators of this pathway downstream of p21. We have now generated a class of noncytotoxic small molecules that inhibit p21-induced transcription and that were identified as selective inhibitors of CDK8 and its isoform CDK19 (21, 22). […] We have discovered that p21 interacts with CDK8 and, surprisingly, stimulates its activity, thereby explaining why p21 activates transcription. […] In agreement with this tumor-supporting function of CDK8, its expression showed a striking correlation with treatment failure in human cancers. These results suggest that CDK8 inhibitors may become a unique class of anticancer drugs that increase the efficacy of cancer therapy by blocking chemotherapy-induced production of tumor-promoting secreted factors.

25

CARS in Action

CARS serves as a helpful model because it

Is technically structure-independent (that is, there are many ways to go about achieving an effective CARS introduction).

Focuses on the purpose for the overall argument presented in an introduction.

Establishes a significance for the overall text so that readers will be more likely to accept subsequent argument and support—setting up context for the methodology of a study, anticipating the interpretation of results, and so on.

26





3. Science Writing


i. CARS in Action

b) The Grant Proposali. A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal

4. Conclusions

5. Further Reading

27

The Grant Proposal

Understanding the grant proposal as a genre:

What do grant proposals attempt to do? (What's the point?)

What do we understand about a given funding agency and its mission/purpose?

How can we communicate the goal of our project to this particular agency? (This generally requires some related questions.)

Is there an expected structure?

What sort of language/voice/style to use?

What kinds of sources should we rely on, and how?

28





3. Science Writing


i. CARS in Action


i. A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal4. Conclusions

5. Further Reading

29

A Rhetorically Effective Grant Proposal

Let's look at a proposal generously shared by Dr. Michael Wyatt, which he wrote in response to a R21 funding opportunity titled 'Biomarkers of Infection-Associated Cancers.'

The purpose of the opportunity as listed on the RFA:

This funding opportunity announcement (FOA), issued by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), encourages the submission of Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Award (R21) applications from institutions and organizations that propose to identify biomarkers for cancers where the etiology of the disease is attributed to infectious agents.

30


Let's look at a proposal generously shared by Dr. Michael Wyatt, which he wrote in response to a R21 funding opportunity titled 'Biomarkers of Infection-Associated Cancers.'

The purpose of the opportunity as listed on the RFA:

This funding opportunity announcement (FOA), issued by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), encourages the submission of Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Award (R21) applications from institutions and organizations that propose to identify biomarkers for cancers where the etiology of the disease is attributed to infectious agents.

31


From Wyatt's proposal narrative:

Cervical cancer, caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, affects 12,000 women annually in the U.S., yet cervical cancer is a rare outcome of HPV infection, which is estimated to be greater than 10 million. Moreover, Pap test screening produces approximately 1 in 10 abnormal tests that require costly and emotionally taxing follow ups that often show no evidence of disease. This project will discover new biomarkers that can predict which HPV infections are most likely to lead to cervical cancer, thus greatly reducing the economic and psychological burden associated with the current system of testing.

32

A Rhetorically Effective Grant ProposalThis brief narrative follows the basic CARS model, by the way:

Move #1 ('Establish a territory'):Cervical cancer, caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, affects 12,000 women annually in the U.S., yet cervical cancer is a rare outcome of HPV infection, which is estimated to be greater than 10 million.

Move #2 ('Establish a niche'):Moreover, Pap test screening produces approximately 1 in 10 abnormal tests that require costly and emotionally taxing follow ups that often show no evidence of disease.

Move #3 ('Occupy the niche'):This project will discover new biomarkers that can predict which HPV infections are most likely to lead to cervical cancer, thus greatly reducing the economic and psychological burden associated with the current system of testing.

33


From the section of Wyatt's proposal on the project's aims:

The estimated prevalence of cervical human papillomavirus (HPV) infections in U.S. women is greater than 10 million, with approximately 6.2 million new infections per year. Yet, cervical cancer is a rare outcome of HPV infection, with about 12,000 new cases of cervical cancer reported annually in the U.S. […] Although Pap test screening has reduced cervical cancer rates in the U.S., the test has low sensitivity and women must undergo repeated tests. Moreover, about 10% of Pap tests are read as “abnormal” (LSIL or HSIL), often resulting in follow up procedures such as colposcopy and biopsy, which are costly and have significant morbidity and emotional consequences. Thus, there is a great clinical need to identify biomarkers that are predictive of the small number of persistent, high-risk HPV infections […] so that medical resources can be directed to the women truly at risk.

34


From the section of Wyatt's proposal on the project's significance:

[V]alid biomarkers of HPV persistence would greatly reduce the economic and psychological burden associated with the current screening system of over testing and overtreatment by greatly reducing the number of women who are routinely screened. This application proposes to explore HPV DNA methylation status and SNPs potentially associated with HPV methylation status as biomarkers of HPV persistence. Such biomarkers would revolutionize cervical cancer screening procedures.

35


In the section of Wyatt's proposal on the project's significance, Wyatt builds a multifaceted argument for the significant and innovative nature of his project:

These reports have raised the possibility that DNA methylation […] genes may serve as a robust biomarker predictive of the risk of cervical disease progression, but note that to our knowledge, no study has attempted to correlate methylation with viral persistence, prior to the appearance of abnormal cytology.

Later, in the same section:

Polymorphisms in BER encoding genes and associations with folate status have received attention in studies of other cancers (35, 36), but have not been examined in the context of HPV and cervical cancer.

36


In the section of Wyatt's proposal on the project's innovation(s):

This proposal takes advantage of a unique prospective study carried out at the University of South Carolina (USC), the Carolina Women’s Care Study (CWCS) funded by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (P20 MD001770, PIs Drs. Creek and Sandra Glover) […] A strength of this R21 proposal is that all of the samples to be used in the proposed studies have already been collected and are available for immediate analyses. In addition, all of the HPV detection and typing of these samples is completed.

37





3. Science Writing


i. CARS in Action



4. Conclusions5. Further Reading

38

Conclusions

Effective writing—whether for the sciences or not—is not a skill that comes easily or naturally to most individuals.

Draft often, regardless of how polished the text is as a result of any individual writing section.

Revise just as often.

Get feedback from informed readers.

Constantly think about your audience:

Who are you writing to/for? What do you need to say to persuade that audience to agree

with your argument? How do you need to say it?

39

Conclusions

40

Conclusions

Almost all writing scholars view the act of writing as a reflexive, recursive process rather than as a linear activity. Put another way: relying on an 'n of 1 (one)' is never the approach you want to bank on.

Again, draft often.

Again, revise often.

Write in bursts. Write 'sloppily' at first if need be, to get your ideas on paper/screen. Polish those ideas later (see 'revise often' above!) as more of the text comes together.

Following my advice is not a guarantee that your writing will always be successful. However, your writing is statistically far more likely to be successful if you listen than if you ignore it.

Good luck writing!

41





3. Science Writing


i. CARS in Action



4. Conclusions

5. Further Reading

42

Further Reading

Ceccarelli L. 2001. Shaping science with rhetoric: The cases of Dobzhansky, Schrodinger, and Wilson. Chicago: U Chicago; 204 p.

Kuhn TS. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: U Chicago; 212 p.

Latour B. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP; 274 p.

Niemantsverdriet JW. 2008. How to give successful oral and poster presentations. Available from http://www.efcats.org/Give+Successful+Presentations.html

Penrose AM and Katz SB. 2010. Writing in the sciences: Exploring conventions of scientific discourse. 3rd ed. New York: Longman; 425 p.

Swales JM. 2008. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge UP; 261 p.

Writing in/for the Sciences Kevin Brock Department of English Language and Literature University of South Carolina presentation materials available at:

Documents

writing infor

writing arhetorical

rhetorical genres genres

reading slide

rhetorical appeals ethos

effective grant proposal

action bthe grant proposal

fundamental considerations