A rhetorical, multi-disciplinary guide, Writing in the Sciences discusses the major genres of science writing including research reports, grant proposals, conference presentations, and a variety of forms of public communication. 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. PRINCIPLES AND PURPOSES FOR SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE.     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. Exploring Technology in Scientific Communication.   2.1 Science and Technology.   2.2 Technology and Collaboration in Science.   2.3 Technology and Publication in Science.   2.4 Technology and the Public Audience for Science.   2.5 Technology’s Material Advantages.   2.6 Technology and the Visual Dimension of Science.   2.7 Technology and Paradigms.   2.8 Technology and the Rhetorical Challenge of Communicating Science. 3. Considering Ethics in Scientific Communication.   3.1 Social Contexts of Scientific Communication Ethics.   3.2 Ethical ‘Mechanisms’ in Science.   3.3 The Ethics of Authorship.   3.4 Scientific Communication as Moral Responsibility.   3.5 Ethical “Costs” of Communication Technology in Science.   3.6 Scientific Communication and Public Communication: An Ethical Conflict?   3.7 Scientific Style and Social Responsibility: A Two-Way Channel.   3.8 The Ethics of Style as Socialization.   II. EXPLORING FORUMS AND CONVENTIONS OF SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION.   4. Reading and Writing Research Reports. 4.1 Research Journals and Their Readers.   4.2 Argumentation in Science.   4.3 The Logic(s) of Scientific Inquiry.   4.4 Introducing the Research Problem.   4.5 Describing Methods.   4.6 Reporting Results.   4.7 Discussing Trends and Implications.   4.8 The Research Report Abstract.   4.9 Brief Report Genres: Research Letters and Notes.   4.10 How Scientists Write Reports.   4.11 How Scientists Read Reports.   4.12 How Reviewers Evaluate Reports.     5. Reviewing Prior Research. 5.1 The role of Prior Research in Scientific Argument.   5.2 Reviewing as a Genre: The Review Article.   5.3 Locating the Literature.   5.4 Reading Previous Research.   5.5 Identifying Trends and Patterns.   5.6 Organizing the Review.   5.7 Citing Sources in the Text.   5.8 Preparing the List of Works Cited.   5.9 The Research Review Abstract.   6. Preparing Conference Presentations. 6.1 The Role of Research Conferences in the Sciences.   6.2 Writing Conference Proposal Abstracts.   6.3 Organizing the Research Talk.   6.4 Methods of Oral Presentation.   6.5 Delivering Conference Presentations.   6.6 The Use of Graphics in Oral Presentations.   6.7 Preparing Research Posters.   7. Writing Research Proposals. 7.1The Role of the Proposal in Science.   7.2 Multiple Audiences of the Proposal.   7.3 Logic and Organization in the Research Proposal.   7.4 Introducing the Research Problem and Objectives.   7.5 Providing Background.   7.6 Describing Proposed Methods.   7.7 The Research Proposals Abstract.   7.8 How Scientists Write Research Proposals.   7.9 How Reviewers Evaluate Research Proposals.   7.10 Accountability in the Research Process.   8. Communicating with Public Audiences. 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.   III. SAMPLE CASES OF SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION.   Chapter 9: Research on the “Ulcer Bug”: From Theory to Clinic Application Introduction   Warren and Marshall, “Unidentified curved bacilli...,” Lancet, 1983   Blaser, “Gastric Campylobacter-like organisms...,”Gastroenterology, 1987   Graham et al., “Effect of treatment...,”Annals of Internal Medicine, 1992   Chiba et al., “Treating Helicobacter pylori...,” British Medical Journal, 2002   Shah, “Dyspepsia and helicobacter pylori,”British Medical Journal, 2007    Blaser, “An endangered species...,”Scientific American, February 2005   Marshall, “Helicobacter Connections,” Nobel Lecture, December 8, 2005   Chapter 10: Research on Predatory Algae: From Environmental Event to Environmental Policy Introduction   Burkholder et al., “New ‘phantom’ dinoflagellate...,” Nature,1992   Huyghe, “Killer Algae...,” Discover, April 1993   National Sea Grant College Program, Call for Proposals, 1994   Burkholder and Rublee, Sea Grant proposal, 1994   Burkholder et al., “Demonstration of toxicity...,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2005   Rublee et al., “Detection of the Dinozoans..,”The Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology, 2005   Engelhaupt, “New Pfiesteria toxin identified,” Environmental Science & Technology Online News, January 10, 2007   North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, “Safety and Personal Protection,” April 21, 2008   North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, “DWQ Pfiesteria analysis,” April 26, 2008   Maryland Department of Natural Resources, “Protocol for Closing...,” April 18, 2008   Chapter 11: Research on the Oracle at Delphi: From Ancient Myth to Modern Interdisciplinary Science   Introduction   De Boer and Hale, “Proposal,” 1996             De Boer et al., “New Evidence...,” Geology, 2001     Spiller et al., “Multidisciplinary Defense...,” Journal of Toxicology–Clinical Toxicology, 2002   Broad, “For Delphic oracle, fumes and visions,” New York Times, 2002   Hale et al., “New Evidence...Temple of Apollo” (Conference Abstract), American Journal of Archeology, 2002   Etiope et al., “The geological links...,” Geology, 2006   Foster and Lehoux, “The Delphic Oracle...,” Clinical Toxicology, 2007   Chapter 12: Research on Kepler’s Supernova: From Satellite Image to Public Knowledge Space Introduction   O’Dell, “Chandra X-ray Observatory,” NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, 1997   CXO Research Program, “Call for Proposals,” NASA/Chandra X-ray Center, 2007 Reynolds et al., “Kepler’s Supernova Remnant...,” NASA proposal, 2005     Reynolds et al., “A Deep Chandra Observation” (Conference Abstract), American Astronomical Society, 2007   Roy and Watzke, “A Star's Death...,” NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, January 9, 2007   Cowen, “Solving a 400-year-old Supernova Riddle” Science News Online, January 27, 2007   Naeve, “Kepler Saw a White Dwarf Explode,”Sky & Telescope, April 2007     Reynolds et al., “A Deep Chandra Observation...,”The Astrophysical Journal, 2007   Chapter 13: Research on Katrina’s Carbon Footprint: From Science to Public Debate Introduction   DOE National Institute for Climatic Change Research, Request for Proposals, February 28, 2008   Chambers and Hurtt, “Hurricane Impacts on Structure...,” NICCR Project Summary, 2006   Chambers et al., “Hurricane Katrina’s Carbon Footprint...,”Science, November 16, 2007   Cook-Anderson, “Forests Damaged by Katrina...,” NASA, November 15, 2007   Kaufman, “Katrina, Rita Caused Forestry Disaster,” The Washington Post, November 16, 2007   Shogren, “Trees Lost to Katrina...,” NPR’s All Things Considered, January 21, 2008   Knutson et al., “Simulated reduction...,”Nature Geoscience, May 18, 2008   Associated Press, “Study Says Global Warming...,” The New York Times, May 19, 2008   Revkin, “A New Middle Stance...,” The New York Times, January 1, 2007   Works Cited.   Index of Names and Titles.   Subject Index.