English of science or scientific English?

Abstract

An ‘English of science communications' should focus on the quality of the message, rather than ‘readability' or the specific word choices of the author.

In his recent editorial, All Chinese to me, Howy Jacobs raised the issue of language in science [1]. I feel that some debate is necessary to determine what one might call the ‘English of Science Communications'.

The Nobel Laureate and eminent physicist Niels Bohr once remarked that science is deeply immersed in language, which influences the way it is interpreted and practiced. Present-day biology, with an explosive rate of quantitative data generation, certainly needs a consistent language code for communications. It will both help to create an objective criterion for editorial decisions and make the computerized scanning of the scientific literature and automated content analysis more effective. Most importantly, however, the non-native English speakers, who are otherwise capable of producing excellent data, would get an opportunity to report them, independently of an interpreter.

With English as a basis, each discipline of science has progressively developed its own style of communication, effectively defined to describe objective thinking and quantifiable results. Thus, the message is easily translated into any other language. It is distinct from both creative writing in English and creative English. In order to broaden the scope and help non-native English speakers communicate the results of their research in English, we should minimize the emphasis on ‘readability', which is subjective and not so well-defined, and ensure simply that the manuscripts are written following proper syntax and present logically constructed arguments and analysis. Sometimes, thinking about science in a language other than English might help to discover a whole new paradigm. One should not foreclose on recognizing that opportunity.