Embed
Email

Scientific Writing

Document Sample

Shared by: qinmei liao
Categories
Tags
Stats
views:
5
posted:
10/28/2011
language:
English
pages:
41
Scientific Writing:

How to write like the pros(e)









BioG 105

Cornell University

Scientific Writing

 Not creative writing…unfortunately

 Can still be interesting

 Should be precise, attention to detail

is very important

 Aim for “hyperdistillation”

Three main goals



 Clarity

 Completeness

 Insight

Follow Directions!!!!



 Enzyme Lab Pages L14-L26

 Appendix D (Lab Report Format)

 Appendix F (Figures and Tables)

 Pay close attention to pages L25-26,

Laboratory Checklist

 Ask for help

Enzyme Lab Report

 Title (2%)  Discussion (22%)



 Abstract (10%)  Literature Cited (4%)



 3 + sources required

 Introduction (15%)

 1 reserve reading

 Materials &

 Appendices (5%)

Methods (4%)

 6-7 pages of text*

 Results (20%)



* Not including title page,

figures, or appendices

Title

 Clear, concise

 Should communicate what you did

 Be specific

 Should identify organisms involved

 Examples of bad titles:

 Enzyme Lab

 The effect of various factors on enzyme activity

 The effects of the environment on catalase

conformation

 Format title page exactly as shown on p. A7

Abstract

 Brief summary of all parts of experiment

 Problem investigated

 General overview of methods

 Major results

 Conclusions

 No citations

 Be specific and concise

 Abstract must stand alone

 Write it LAST

What’s wrong with this?



Abstract (partial)

The series of experiments was designed to test the effects

of the environment on an enzyme, specifically catalase

taken from a Raphanus sativus.

What’s wrong with this?

Abstract (partial)

The series of experiments was designed to test the effects of

the environment on an enzyme, specifically catalase taken

from a Raphanus sativus. We tested how such factors as

concentration, heat, pH, hydrophobic solutions and

inhibitors were detrimental to the performance of the

enzyme.

What’s wrong with this?

Abstract (partial)

The series of experiments was designed to test the effects of

the environment on an enzyme, specifically catalase taken

from a Raphanus sativus. We tested how such factors as

concentration, heat, pH, hydrophobic solutions and inhibitors

were detrimental to the performance of the enzyme. We

expected changes in temperature, pH, and concentration,

as well as the presence of inhibitors to have a large effect

on the enzyme’s conformation and effectiveness.

What’s wrong with this?

Abstract (partial)

The series of experiments was designed to test the effects of

the environment on an enzyme, specifically catalase taken

from a Raphanus sativus. We tested how such factors as

concentration, heat, pH, hydrophobic solutions and inhibitors

were detrimental to the performance of the enzyme. We

expected changes in temperature, pH, and concentration, as

well as the presence of inhibitors to have a large effect on the

enzyme’s conformation and effectiveness. Using the methods

outlined in the Survival Manual, we conducted numerous

experiments to test these hypotheses.

What’s wrong with this?

Abstract (partial)

The series of experiments was designed to test the effects of

the environment on an enzyme, specifically catalase taken

from a Raphanus sativus. We tested how such factors as

concentration, heat, pH, hydrophobic solutions and inhibitors

were detrimental to the performance of the enzyme. We

expected changes in temperature, pH, and concentration, as

well as the presence of inhibitors to have a large effect on the

enzyme’s conformation and effectiveness. Using the methods

outlined in the Survival Manual, we conducted numerous

experiments to test these hypotheses. They proved correct as

the reaction rate changed drastically.

Introduction

 Orient reader to your field and put the

experiment in context

 Assume reader has a science background

 Don’t regurgitate the basics, get to the point

 Introduce method

 General overview

 Explain rationale and objectives

 Present and justify hypotheses

 Reference sources for background

A note on using references…

 Must have a citation for every

statement of fact

 Don’t simply throw the citation in at

the end of a sentence, write a

sentence that tells the reader what

you learned from the source.

 What to cite? How to find sources?

A sample sentence from a

previous student’s Introduction:



 “One would expect to see increased activity

for higher concentrations of catalase (Karp

1999).”



 Why? What did you learn from Karp?

Sample sentences from a

published paper:



 “Kosinski (1987) suggested that there was a

significant difference in motor skills when

using the dominant versus the non-dominant

hand. Experience performing a task appears

to improve the motor skills required for the

task (Helms, 1994).”

Materials & Methods

 Reader should be able to reproduce

experiment exactly

 Can refer to protocols described elsewhere

(i.e., Survival Manual) for sake of brevity

 Must mention any deviations from protocol

and specific details of your experiment

(temperature, pH, etc.)

 What steps were taken to be consistent?

 Acknowledge work of others, shared data

Results

 Quantitative  “When using the

 No raw data dominant hand, the

 Summarize and mean reaction time for

illustrate findings dextrals was 0.223

 No interpretation or sec, while that for

conclusions sinistrals was 0.227

 Integrate tables/figures sec. (Table 1).”

and text

 Point out most

important information

in text

 Be careful using

“significant”

A counter-example

 “My group’s next experiment was to

test the effects of high temperatures

on catalase activity. At 30˚C, the rate

was .195, at 40˚C, it was .186, at

50˚C, the rate was .137 and at 60˚C, it

was .015 (Figure 2).

Tables

 Summarize data, no Mean

raw data Inhibitor Reaction

 Means, SDs, etc. Rate (1/s)

 Title should allow to Hydroxylamine 0.00

stand alone

4% NaCl 0.01

 What does “stand

alone” mean? 4% NaF 0.04

 Belong in section where

first referred to, as do

figures

 Don’t forget units!!

 Appendix F

Table 1. Effect of the presence of various

agents (possible inhibitors or stimulators) on

the reaction rate of radish (R. sativus)

catalase.

Inhibitor Mean Reaction Rate (1/s)

Hydroxylamine 0.00

4% NaCl 0.01

4% NaF 0.04



** It might make more sense to show change in

reaction rate. Think about the best way to present

your findings…

Figures

 Can use computer

generated figures

 MUST hand-draw

standard curve for this

lab report

 Figure title should

allow figure to stand

alone

 Indicate units

 Use to show

Fig. 16. Mean relative M2 size for each group. The

LOW48 group mean was significantly higher (P < 0.05) patterns/trends

than all groups with the exception of TUNDRA and

KENAI. Bars are 95% confidence intervals. See Table

 Appendix F

7 for group name abbreviations. Relative M2 size

calculated as: (( M2 length * M2 breadth)) /

condylobasal skull length.

Discussion

 Interpret results (parallel structure)

 Support conclusions with evidence

 Discuss all data in results

 Refer back to hypotheses

 Analyze deviations from expectations

 Tie results in to big picture ideas if possible

 Cite literature to justify results and put

results in context

 Identify sources of error and weaknesses of

experiment

Discussion Sample

 “All subjects performed equally when using their dominant

hands, but there were significant differences among individuals

when the non-dominant hand was used. Furthermore, all

subjects showed decreased performance when their non-

dominant hand was used. This supports Kosinski (1987) and

agrees with the predicted outcome. Since this test required

typing skills, those subjects with typing training may have

performed better than those without due to their prior

experiences, as suggested by Helms (1994). All subjects were

only tested 10 times, and, therefore, a single errant response by

a subject had a large effect on their mean response. This could

have caused false conclusions to be drawn. Future

investigations would…”

Literature Cited

 Citing source material is of the utmost

importance

 Cannot tolerate plagiarism

 See Appendix D, follow format exactly

 McFadden, C., Sacco, T., and A. Plescia.

2005. BioG 105 Introductory Biology Fall

Survival Manual. CBS Digital Services, Ithaca,

NY.

More on Literature Cited:

 Must cite 3 or more sources

 One source from reserve readings or

other primary literature

 Avoid using only textbooks

Appendices

 Raw data in table form (use proper

format)

 Show sample calculations

 Neat and orderly

A word of warning:

 You must write the report completely

independently.

 Teamwork in writing lab reports is not

acceptable!

 Plagiarism is a serious issue and will not be

tolerated.

 Please see the Cornell Code of Academic

Integrity if you have any questions about

academic integrity issues.

 The Code is accessible on the Internet at:

http://cuinfo.cornell.edu/Academic/AIC.html

Before you turn it in…

 Proofread and Spellcheck!

 Have a friend look it over.

 Go over report while looking at L25-

L26, Laboratory Checklist - Enzyme

Lab.

 Ask TAs SPECIFIC questions.

Another good source of info…

 McMillan, V.E. 1997.

Writing Papers in

the Biological

Sciences, 2nd

edition. Bedford

Books, Boston.

 At front desk or find

QH304 M16x 1997 @

Mann Library

Walk-In Writing Tutoring

at The Knight Institute for Writing in the

Disciplines



 Olin Library 106: Sun - Thurs 7-10pm

 Takton Center, Balch 3343: Sun-Thurs

7-10pm

 RPC 222: Sun-Wed 7-10pm

 Rockefeller 178: Sun - Thurs 3:30-5:30pm,

7-10pm

 www.arts.cornell.edu/writing

Lab Report Puzzle

Two groups of naive, individually-isolated

squirrels, previously fed only a basic low

calorie diet, were presented with hickory

nuts for the first time. Group One was

allowed to continue under the same

conditions while the squirrels in Group Two

could observe an experienced squirrel

feeding. After six weeks, the

experimenter compared feeding times,

feeding techniques, and the metabolic cost

of feeding of the two groups.

_____ 1. Only the time actually spent handling and

M&M

gnawing a nut was recorded; feeding was

considered complete when the squirrel finally

discarded the empty shell.



_____ 2. Although initially both groups required

R

approximately equal time to eat, only Group Two

showed a significant decrease at the end of the

sixth week. Group Two also exhibited a marked

decline in within-group variability (see Fig. 1).



_____ 3. Thus, it would not be surprising to learn as

I

a result of this study that there is a

relationship between the food handling techniques

exhibited by squirrels and their success in avoiding

being eaten by predators.

D

_____ 4. Due to the territorial nature of these squirrels, a

particular difficulty was introducing the naive squirrels of Group

Two to the experienced individual. However, the overall

success of this approach is indicated by several

experimental outcomes.



R

____ 5. The graph in Fig. 6 shows that there is a strong linear

relationship between the size of each squirrel in Group One and

the overall proportion of its time which

was spent feeding.



I

_____ 6. While ecologists commonly study optimal foraging

from an evolutionary perspective (Emlem, 1968; Pulliam, 1974)

and ethologists explore social aspects of the learning process

(Alcock, 1969; Herbert and Harsh, 1944), little attempt has been

made to combine the insights from these two lines of research

(Galef, 1976).

Remember your due date.

Papers are due 15 minutes

prior to closing.

(Also keep in mind that you have

3 lab extensions to use for

Enzyme or CP lab report due

dates.)

The End…





Any

questions?

Fig. 15. Representative

images of lateral and

ventral views of the skull

for some of the groups

studied. All images

scaled to approximately

equal skull lengths. See

Table 7 for group name

abbreviations. Note that

three specimens have

been included for the

ABC group to illustrate

the range of within group

variation.

Figure 18. Plots of GLS superimposed configurations for each specimen for lateral (A) and ventral (B) views

of the skull. Lines connect the landmark points for the consensus (grand mean) configuration.

Figure 99. Schematic phylogeny of the bears based on analysis of complete sequences of three mitochondrial genes (Talbot

and Shields 1996b) (left) and RWA tree (right), an UPGMA dendrogram summarizing cluster analysis of mean scores for



Related docs
Other docs by qinmei liao
Q CMA ExperienceRequirement
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
Lipid Learning Activity
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
MATERIAL SAFETY AND DATA SHEETS
Views: 2  |  Downloads: 0
Financial Planning The Ties That Bind
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
Inflammatory Pain
Views: 4  |  Downloads: 0
Group goal setting workshop
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
MEETINGS REPORT ACTION SHEET
Views: 1  |  Downloads: 0
LYMPHOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
By registering with docstoc.com you agree to our
privacy policy

You are almost ready to download!

You are almost ready to download!