Throughout my time in Advanced Writing in the Sciences this semester, I have noticed considerable growth not only in my writing abilities but also in my relationship with literature and authorship. Throughout projects 1-3, I have been placed in unfamiliar territories, each time facing challenges that instigated considerable self-reflection. Exploring the depth of science writing and learning about the various forms it can take has broadened my perspective on how I can most effectively communicate science to my peers, a scientific audience, and a public audience. In addition, expanding my rhetorical repertoire and understanding of genre convention has cultivated a more critical understanding of not only my own work but also the work of others. It has been especially valuable to understand the importance of communication in science, as I plan to pursue research and hope to be published in the future.
When reviewing Northeastern’s learning goals for advanced writing in the disciplines, the three that I have most proudly demonstrated throughout each project are as follows:
Students explore diverse experiences, perspectives, and ideas–such as intersections of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, class, language, and ability–in campus, societal, disciplinary, professional, or historical contexts.
Students write both to learn and to communicate what they learn.
Students effectively use and cite sources in their writing
I accomplished the first of my goals in project 3 - the public audience article. I decided to explore Western attitudes towards alternative medical systems and how Biomedicine hypocritically discredits the systematic understanding of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Tackling this sociocultural issue was daunting at first because in the past I have tended to stray away from social issues in my writing. For this project in particular, I had a difficult time maintaining an unbiased perspective to fit my selected genre: a feature article. However, after observing several model texts and their approaches to constructing a balanced and diverse overview of each argument, I felt confident enough in my authorship to speak on the changing tides of medical intervention in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. In my article, I state: “In Western society, the assumption that patients pursue alternative medicine because they feel failed by Biomedicine is informed by harsh, culturally-enforced distinctions that discourage the adoption medical pluralism…people in the United States who use alternative medicine do so largely because these alternative approaches align more closely with their beliefs, values, and philosophical outlook on health and illness”. Addressing these preconceived assumptions and offering an alternative, ‘underdog’ perspective in a manner that is not only convincing to the audience but is also respectful of each medical system is the key aspect of my public science article that I am most proud of.
Project 2, the literature review, was the most enticing for me because I took the liberty of pursuing a niche of life sciences that I am fascinated by and hope to work with in my future career. By gathering sources for my review and meticulously digesting their findings while I wrote, I accomplished my second goal - writing both to learn and communicate what I learn. Because each primary source I consulted offered new information, I often found myself having to make edits to my abstract and future directions when I found an alkaloid that exhibited even lower cytotoxicity. This was frustrating, but also fun because it felt like I was on a mission for the most significant finding. In my paper, I communicate these significant findings by explaining how “narciclasine exhibits the lowest IC50 values and highest apoptotic rates of all alkaloids investigated. Its inhibitory effects at concentrations even lower than doxorubicin support its use as an effective chemotherapeutic agent in the treatment of breast cancer. However, because the understanding of underlying mechanism behind its anti-cancer activity and its selectivity remain less understood.” The jargon in this sentence illustrates the scientific measurements and models that I learned throughout my project. With this newfound understanding, I am able to better navigate the current climate of phytochemical research and gain a more informed perspective on novel drug experimentation.
I effectively demonstrate how to cite sources in my writing in all three projects I completed. In Project 2, I learned how to synthesize sources and represent this synthesis. The in-text citation style I learned in this course that communicates source synthesis is displayed in the following paraphrase from my literature review: “Alkaloids are found in the roots, leaves, rhizomes, flowers, and bark of select species (E.F. Ali et al. 2021; Z. Cao et al. 2022; F.I. Eze et al., 2022). In project 1, my rhetorical analysis, I illustrate a more typical use of in-text citation with direct quotes: “Paragraphs begin with statements like “We investigated the role of…” ¹⁽pp.2), “We found that…” ¹⁽pp.2), “We planned to introduce…” ¹⁽pp.2), and “We used,” ¹⁽pp.12) before delving into their findings and the content of the experiment.” In project 3, I illustrate the technique of citing sources via hyperlinking under niche TCM terms with this sentence: “For example, in TCM, the terms shen 身 (the lived body), hsing 形 (the bodily form or shape), and ti 体 (embodiment of any number of things, including spiritual, cosmic, and moral states) are used in combination to illustrate multifarious existence free from mechanical physiology and discrete anatomical structures.”
As this semester comes to a close, I have been able to measure my progress in Advanced Writing in the Sciences by accomplishing these three goals. However, I believe my accomplishments far exceed only these three parameters. Outside of this course, I have recognized so many moments where I have fearlessly embraced the challenge of crafting an effective piece of writing. I am excited to see how gaining confidence in my communication skills continues to pay off.