The Art of Scientific Research–
Communication

By Charles Burgess

"The world looks so different after learning science.

For example, trees are made of air, primarily. When they are burned, they go back to air, and in the flaming heat is released the flaming heat of the sun which was found in to convert the air into tree. And in the ash is the small remnant of the part which did not come from air, that came from the solid earth, instead.

These are beautiful things, and the content of science is wonderfully full of them. They are very inspiring, and they can be used to inspire others."

–Richard Feynman

The clear communication of concepts, whether newly formed or firmly established, enhances the formation of connections, bridges spanning between apparently unrelated fundamental laws of science, is the very core of the art of scientific research. If we, as amateur or professional scientists alike, wish to make genuine contributions to that body of knowledge we call Science, we must make the effort to communicate clearly.

Yet, the written communication in the form of scientific articles is notorious in its lack of clarity . . . "what do you get when you cross the difficult verbal unintelligible legalese of an attorney with the undecipherable handwriting of a medical doctor? . . . a scientific article."

I very recently recall reading a formal scientific research article from a scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, whose writing skills resembled that of a 6th grader with a "big word dictionary." In reading it, I found it necessary to fill-in missing words to complete the implied sentence structure–sentence by sentence... and this man had a PhD! Also, I have recently seen a genuine scientific article start with . . . "Warning: This paper is written for scientists and engineers. In order to confuse and obfuscate the public, we utilize substantial technical jargon." This came from a astro-physical research dept at UC Berkeley.

Obfuscate: to confuse. If the pursuit of objective knowledge and its dissimination to all of mankind is the purpose of scientific research, why is this so? But in all fairness, I have read some scientific articles that do communicate clearly. So, some scientists, both the professional and the amateur, do make the effort.

This problem of clear communication, whether written or oral, can be attributed to many causes, but we need to understand the fundamental source, the root of it all. . .

Science (a body of knowledge) with it's many and varied branches (physics, chemistry, biology, etc., etc.... ) could be viewed as a beautiful tree with its branches, limbs, twigs, leaves, flowers and fruits (specialization upon specialization).... a prominent and wonderous tree of knowledge in a forest of knowledge. And in this "tree," the same sap flows through each and all of it's branches, etc., etc. This "sap" is the fundamental laws of science, both discovered and as of yet undiscovered, that provides nourishment to all aspects of this tree and its branches . . . so that each branch and twig can grow (you'll notice that in real trees, new growth begins in the twigs). Thus, this "tree of knowledge" called science grows larger as a body of knowledge. This particular analogy could go on and on, and in more detail.

Other analogies could be constructed to likewise illustrate the overall big picture . . . that these fundamental laws/concepts (those discovered and as of yet undiscovered) apply to and have their effect on, each and all the many branches of Science. Yet, because of the vast size of this body of knowledge, it has become over time, increasingly necessary for each of the different branches to become more and more specialized in it's emphasis of the various aspects of these fundamental laws and concepts. Therefore, in any particular specialization, the perspective of and focus on a fundamental law or concept becomes more and more narrow–specialized. Thus limiting or slowing the cross-disciplinary communication which is so vital to the continued growth of scientific knowledge. But, with more attention and effort toward clear communication, through a cross-disciplinary discussion, exciting fresh insights and new approaches lead to true progress in the advancement of scientific knowledge can be made.

Consider the fundamental laws and concepts of thermodynamics, for example. There is not a single field of natural or physical science that is not affected or touched by the concepts of thermodynamics. Let us call this fundamental laws/concept a precious gemstone–an object of great beauty. Each of the specialized fields of science adds a facet to this gemstone, each a separate window into this fundamental law providing a unique perspective–a specialized view required by each field of science due to their various necessities of emphasis. Therefore each facet/window will provide an internal view into the different aspects of this laws/concept of thermodynamics. But not all of these aspects can be viewed through a single facet/window, because of each facet being a specialized perspective or focus into this gemstone. What may be obvious through any particular facet might not be noticed when seen through any of the other facets.

And while we are all looking at the same thing–a gemstone of great beauty, it is natural for all who view and contemplate what is seen, to try to communicate with others who also behold the internal and intricate beauties of this single gemstone. But due to the specialized perspectives offered by the various facets–cross-disciplinary communication can be both extremely stimulating and frustratingly difficult at the same time . . . when what is described by the field of physics is not quite understood by those in the field of biology, for example. Why is this? Perhaps even though the nomenclature of the fundamental laws/concepts of thermodynamics is firmly established, it is due to the fact that each specialized field of science (and specialization upon specialization) requires a equally specialized perspective and emphasis touching the fundamental laws and concepts of thermodynamics, and possibly equal emphasis is not apparently shared by the other specialized fields of science–the necessary result of the necessity for specialization. Resulting in the tweaking of the nomenclature within and sometimes isolated to each specialization.

So why bother with cross-disciplinary communication and its possibly frustrating difficulties? Why make the effort to explain what is so obvious to your specialty, to those of another apparently unrelated specialty who just can't see it? Why not just confine your communication to those within your specialty who understand its nomenclature? Not bothering with cross-disciplinary communication would seem to save time that can be more productively put to use within your own specialized investigations. BUT this is not true!!! The biologist readily understands the implications of a narrow gene pool–so think of this as narrow thought/idea pool leading to sterile concepts and ideas, a dry rut. On the other hand, cross disciplinary communication results in a broad thought pool.

There is much to be gained through active participation in cross-disciplinary communication, even in topics whose relevancy to your specialty may not readily be apparent. And in doing so you tap into a source of scientific/intellectual stimulation that cannot be found elsewhere. This stimulus can trigger fresh insights and open new approaches for your specialized investigations, resulting from vigorous discussions on an apparently unrelated topic.

If the discussion, oral or written, is cross-disciplinary, it will be at times vigorous and always stimulating . . . such is the art of scientific research.