![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Scientific blind spots
Sep. 7th, 2015 10:52 amJust finished editing a paper about embryonic development, in which the authors present a batch of cross-sectional data showing the relative positions of certain embryonic structures (e.g., the heart) at different times during embryonic development. It's creepily fascinating the way things move around; for example, the embryo's heart moves downwards from the neck region, passing through arm structures en route to its final destination in the thoracic cavity.
I was also fascinated to see that the authors didn't seem to have thought beyond the print communication model, which of necessity requires the presentation of static images. But most journals now encourage authors to publish "supplemental information" on their Web site; this is information that would be impossible to publish in the printed version of the journal. Reasons for this impossibility include a requirement for color (which remains very expensive to print), the massive size of a dataset (e.g., large genetics databases), or -- most interesting to me -- information that would benefit greatly from the multimedia capabilities of the Web (i.e., sound and video).
Once every couple months, I find myself encouraging authors to take advantage of this "new" possibility. In the context of the embryo paper, the authors used 3D modeling software to create static anatomical images showing the positions of various structures, which is great as far as it goes. But they didn't consider the possibility of providing the actual models as supplemental material, which would allow readers of the paper to download the models and move through them the way doctors move through CAT and MRI scans to observe the characteristics of a structure in three dimensions. Neither did they use the software to produce an animation that shows how the anatomy evolves progressively during embryonic development.
Such visualizations would be an important tool for helping readers understand both anatomy and its changes over time. Yet the authors didn't think of this! It's a sufficiently important omission that I devoted an entire chapter to this subject in my recent book, Writing for Science Journals.
If you're a communicator (writer, editor, other), it's always worthwhile stepping back for a moment and asking yourself whether you're a little too comfortable inside your particular box, or whether stepping outside that box would reveal powerful additional tools for effective communication.
I was also fascinated to see that the authors didn't seem to have thought beyond the print communication model, which of necessity requires the presentation of static images. But most journals now encourage authors to publish "supplemental information" on their Web site; this is information that would be impossible to publish in the printed version of the journal. Reasons for this impossibility include a requirement for color (which remains very expensive to print), the massive size of a dataset (e.g., large genetics databases), or -- most interesting to me -- information that would benefit greatly from the multimedia capabilities of the Web (i.e., sound and video).
Once every couple months, I find myself encouraging authors to take advantage of this "new" possibility. In the context of the embryo paper, the authors used 3D modeling software to create static anatomical images showing the positions of various structures, which is great as far as it goes. But they didn't consider the possibility of providing the actual models as supplemental material, which would allow readers of the paper to download the models and move through them the way doctors move through CAT and MRI scans to observe the characteristics of a structure in three dimensions. Neither did they use the software to produce an animation that shows how the anatomy evolves progressively during embryonic development.
Such visualizations would be an important tool for helping readers understand both anatomy and its changes over time. Yet the authors didn't think of this! It's a sufficiently important omission that I devoted an entire chapter to this subject in my recent book, Writing for Science Journals.
If you're a communicator (writer, editor, other), it's always worthwhile stepping back for a moment and asking yourself whether you're a little too comfortable inside your particular box, or whether stepping outside that box would reveal powerful additional tools for effective communication.