Major
Biological Sciences
Advisor
Proestou, Dina
Advisor Department
Fisheries, Animal, and Veterinary Science
Advisor
Morrison, Cate
Advisor Department
Communication Studies
Date
5-2017
Keywords
creative writing; nonfiction; Rosalind Franklin; Technical or Scientific Writing; Literature Review
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to contrast scientific rhetoric with creative biographical writing style. Both forms of communication rely on specific syntax and styles to describe research findings to the appropriate audiences, but the often passive format of scientific literature excludes the passionate reasonings of the researcher. In order to understand why the scientist is kept separate from his or her published findings, I am going to experiment with the two contrasting forms. Throughout the paper, each form will be tested and used at varying levels. Both scientific and creative writing will be mixed. To emphasize the technically dense and passive nature of scientific writing, the paper first explores the work of Rosalind Franklin through a literature review. Then, in the method section of the paper, I will allow Franklin to gain a consciousness of herself in the lab, as she is considering her data. Here, a transition will occur from looking at Franklin’s work to being in it. Finally, the conclusion of the paper will examine the success of the paper, that is, experimenting with including a scientist’s life in her studies. This conclusory section will employ creative syntax instead of scientific, so that through fictional writing, Franklin as a character could be depicted in a way that shows the scientist’s desire to be immersed in research.
Included in
Fiction Commons, Molecular Biology Commons, Molecular Genetics Commons, Nonfiction Commons, Structural Biology Commons, Technical and Professional Writing Commons