This rhetorical, multi-disciplinary guide discusses the major genres of science writing including research reports, grant proposals, conference presentations, and a variety of forms of public communication. Writing in the Sciences combines a descriptive approach—helping students to recognize distinctive features of common genres in their fields—with a rhetorical focus—helping them to analyze how, why, and for whom texts are created by scientists. Multiple samples from real research cases illustrate a range of scientific disciplines and audiences for scientific research along with the corresponding differences in focus, arrangement, style, and other rhetorical dimensions. Comparisons among disciplines provide the opportunity for students to identify common conventions in science and investigate variation across fields.

Table of Contents:
Preface. List of stylistic features. I. SCIENTIFIC CONVENTIONS. 1. Science as a Social Enterprise. 1.1 The shaping of knowledge in science. 1.2 The social nature of science. 1.3 The centrality of communication in science. 1.4 The role of persuasion in scientific communication. 1.5 Scientific communication and convention. 1.6 The role of collaboration in scientific communication. 2. Forums for Communication in Science. 2.1 The socialization process: Entering a new community. 2.2 Research journals and their readers. 2.3 Research conferences and professional associations. 2.4 Research proposals and their audiences. 2.5 Communicating beyond the research community. 2.6 Electronic communication in science. 3. Reading and Writing Research Reports. 3.1 Argumentation in science. 3.2 The logic(s) of scientific inquiry. 3.3 Introducing the research problem. 3.4 Describing methods. 3.5 Reporting results. 3.6 Discussing trends and implications. 3.7 The research report abstract. 3.8 Brief report genres: Research letters and notes 3.9 How scientists write reports. 3.10 How scientists read reports. 3.11 How reviewers evaluate reports. 4. Reviewing Prior Research. 4.1 The role of prior research in scientific argument 4.2 Reviewing as a genre: The review article. 4.3 Locating the literature. 4.4 Reading previous research. 4.5 Identifying trends and patterns. 4.6 Organizing the review. 4.7 Citing sources in the text. 4.8 Preparing the list of works cited. 4.9 The research review abstract. 5. Preparing Conference Presentations. 5.1 The role of research conferences in the sciences 5.2 Writing conference proposal abstracts. 5.3 Organizing the research talk. 5.4 Methods of oral presentation. 5.5 Delivering conference presentations. 5.6 The use of graphics in oral presentations. 5.7 Preparing research posters. 6. Writing Research Proposals. 6.1 The role of the proposal in science. 6.2 Multiple audiences of the proposal. 6.3 Logic and organization in the research proposal 6.4 Introducing the research problem and objectives 6.5 Providing background. 6.6 Describing proposed methods. 6.7 The research proposal abstract. 6.8 How scientists write research proposals. 6.9 How reviewers evaluate research proposals. 6.10 Accountability in the research process. 7. Documenting Procedures and Guidelines. 7.1 Audiences and purposes in industry and government. 7.2 General principles for writing instructions. 7.3 Developing procedures for quality assurance. 7.4 Documenting procedures for regulatory purposes. 7.5 Documenting procedures for commercial application. 7.6 Procedures as public policy. 7.7 Procedures as public ethos. 8. Communicating Science in the Public Realm. 8.1 Why do scientists communicate with public audiences? 8.2 Understanding “general” audiences. 8.3 Adapting through narration. 8.4 Adapting through examples. 8.5 Adapting through definition. 8.6 Adapting through analysis. 8.7 Adapting through comparison. 8.8 Adapting through graphics. 8.9 Logic and organization in writing for public audiences. 9. Considering Ethics in Scientific Communication. 9.1 Scientific and social ethics. 9.2 The question of authorship. 9.3 Scientific communication as moral responsibility 9.4 Scientific communication and public communication: An ethical conflict? 9.5 Scientific style and social responsibility. 9.6 The ethics of style as socialization. II. SAMPLE RESEARCH CASES. 10. Research on the “Ulcer Bug:” From Theory to Clinical Application. Marshall and Warren and Colleagues. Warren JR, Marshall B. 1983. “Unidentified Curved Bacilli on Gastric Epithelium in Active Chronic Gastritis, ” from Letters to the Lancet. Blaser MJ. 1987. “Gastric Campylobacter—like organisms, gastritis, and peptic ulcer disease,” from Gastroenterology. Letters to the Lancet and Annals of Internal Medicine. Veldhuyzen van Zanten and others 1988. Lam 1989. Marshall, Warren, and Goodwin 1989. Loffeld, Stobberingh, and Arends 1989. Bell 1990. Graham DY, Lew GM, Klein PD, Evans DG, Evans DJ Jr, Saeed ZA, and Malaty HM. 1992. “Effect of treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection on the Long-Term Recurrence of Gastric or Duodenal Ulcer,” from Annals of Internal Medicine. Blaser MJ. 1996 Feb. “The Bacteria Behind Ulcers,” from Scientific American. Alimenterics Inc. 1999. Pylori-Chek Breath Test Kit. Chiba N, Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJO, Sinclair P, Ferguson RA, Escobedo S, and Grace E. 2002. “Treating Helicobacter pylori Infection in Primary Care Patients with Uninvestigated Dyspepsia: The Canadian Adult Dyspepsia Empiric Treatment-Helicobacter pylori Positive (CADET-Hp)Randomized Controlled Trial, ” from British Medical Journal. 11. Research on Predatory Algae: From Environmental Event to Environmental Policy. Burkholder and Colleagues. Burkholder JM, Noga EJ, Hobbs CH, Glasgow HB Jr., and Smith SA. 1992. “New `Phantom' Dinoflagellate is the Causative Agent of Major Estuarine Fish Kills,” from Nature. Huyghe P. 1993 Apr. “Killer Algae,” from Discover. National Sea Grant College Program. 1994. “Statement of Opportunity for Funding: Marine Biotechnology,” [Excerpts]. Burkholder JM, Rublee PA. 1994. “Improved Detection of an Ichthyotoxic Dinoflagellate in Estuaries and Aquaculture Facilities.” Mallin MA, Burkholder JM, Larsen LM, Glasgow HB Jr. 1995. Response of two zooplankton grazers to an ichthyotoxic estuarine dinoflagellate. Journal of Plankton Research. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1999. “Maryland Guidelines for Closing and Reopening Rivers Potentially Affected by Pfiesteria or Pfiesteria-like Events.” US Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. “Pfiesteria Piscicida Fact Sheet.” North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2002. “Collection and Handling of Fish Pathology Samples.” North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2002. “Safety and Personal Protection During Fish Kills.” 12. Research on Supernova Remnants: From Proposal to Publication. Reynolds and Colleagues. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 1993. “NASA Research Announcement Soliciting Proposals for Theory in Space Astrophysics (NRA 93-OSSA-06)” [Excerpt]. Reynolds SP, Borkowski KJ, Blondin JM. 1994. “X-ray Emission and Dynamics of Supernova Remnants” (Proposal submitted to NASA's Astrophysics Theory Program). Reynolds SP, Blondin JM, and Borkowski KJ. “1995 X-ray Emission and Dynamics of Supernova Remnants” (First-Year Report to NASA). Reynolds SP, Blondin JM, Borkowski KJ. 1996 X-ray emission and dynamics of supernova remnants. Second-Year Report to NASA. Reynolds SP, Blondin JM, Borkowski KJ. 1997 X-ray emission and dynamics of supernova remnants. Third-Year Report to NASA. Reynolds SP. 1996. “Synchrotron Models for X-rays From the Supernova Remnant (SN1006),” from Astrophysical Journal. Hendrick SP, Reynolds SP, and Borkowski KJ. 2001. “Maximum Energies of Shock-Accelerated Electrons in Supernova Remnants in the Large Magellanic Cloud,” from Young Supernova Remnants: Eleventh Astrophysics Conference. Hendrick SP and Reynolds SP. 2001. Maximum Energies of Shock-Accelerated Electrons in Large Magellanic Cloud Supernova Remnants,” from Astrophysical Journal. 13. Research on the Oracle at Delphi: From Ancient Myth to Modern Interdisciplinary Science. Hale and Deboer and Colleagues. DeBoer JZ and Hale JR. 1996. “Request for Permission to Take Samples of Travertine Rock from the Vicinity of the Apollo Temple at Delphi.” DeBoer JZ, Hale JR, Chanton J. 2001. New Evidence for the Geological Origins of the Ancient Delphic Oracle (Greece),” from Geology. Spiller HA, Hale JR, DeBoer JZ. 2002. “The Delphi Oracle: A Multidisciplinary Defense of the Gaseous Vent Theory,” from Journal of Toxicology-Clinical Toxicology. Hale JR, DeBoer J, Chanton J, and Spiller H. 2002. “New Evidence for the Geological Origin of the Delphic Oracle: Active Faults, Gaseous Emissions, and Architectural Anomalies in the Temple of Apollo,” from Conference abstract, 103rd Annual Meeting of the Archeological Institute of America. Broad WJ. 2002. “For Delphic Oracle, Fumes and Visions,” from New York Times. Works Cited. Index of Names and Titles. Subject Index.