7.021--Introduction toExperimental Biology/Writing
7.021--Introduction toExperimental Biology/Writing
Section B (Tue 9-11 a.m.in 14N-0637)Section F (Thr 1-3 p.m. in 14N-0637)
Neal LernerOffice: 68-150a; x2-2939;
Meeting 1: IntroductionsMeeting 1: Introductions
What is the Plan for 7.021?What is the Plan for 7.021?
• See Course web site: http://mit.edu/7.021/www/• Course goals: By the end of the semester, you will
– Understand the seven components (title, abstract, introduction,methods, results, discussion/conclusion, tables/figures) of alaboratory research paper.
– Understand the writing process and its application to scientificwriting.
– Understand the importance of communicating in writing as ascientist.
– Understand the relationship between audience, purpose, andcontent.
– Use writing both as a means of expressing content knowledge andof learning content.
– Give and receive peer feedback in order to improve your writing.– Apply an understanding of scientific writing to your subsequent
independent research.
Course ScheduleCourse Schedule• Meeting dates vary! Check dates for your section and mark your
calendars.
• Six Meetings focus on seven components of a research paper (Intro,Methods, Results, Figures/Legends, Discussion/Conclusion, Titleand Abstract):
• In-class exercises: Use Stellar discussion board and StarOffice. Make a hard copy of Star Office docs and save files inyour Athena locker.
• Out-of-class exercises: Use MS word on your own machinesor Star Office on Athena, turn in hard copy and save file as aback up.
• Long-term project: 5 choices - This follows an iterativeprocess. Something needs to be turned in at each classmeeting. (Use MS word on your own machines or Star Officeon Athena, turn in hard copy and save file as a back up.)
GradingGrading
• In-class exercises = 20%• Out-of-class exercises = 30%• Long-term project = 50%
Letter to NealLetter to Neal
Tell me about the following:
1) Your experiences with writing up scientificcontent (e.g., lab reports, reviews, researchpapers).
2) How you would describe yourself as a writer.
3) Your writing goals for 7.021.
A Brief History of the Research Articlefrom Swales (1990)
A Brief History of the Research Articlefrom Swales (1990)
• Mid-17th century: Robert Boyle presents his pneumaticexperiments to the Royal Society, public presentationsbefore “witnesses” in order to seek agreement on theresults.
• 1665: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Societyis established, the first scientific periodical.
• By 1800 “the definition of experiment moves from anymade or done thing, to an intentional investigation, to a testof theory, to finally a proof of evidence for a claim”(Bazerman 1983).
• By 1900, the current format of research article is largelyestablished.
Macrostructure of a Research ArticleMacrostructure of a Research Article
• Hourglass diagram ofHill et al.
• Introduction providesgeneral field or context.
• Methods follows aparticularized path.
• Discussion moves fromspecific findings towider implications.
What’s an Introduction?What’s an Introduction?
• An introduction is a method to familiarizeand orient your readers.
• The content of an introduction depends onits purpose and the audience.
• All models share a direct approach. Don’thide your main point or save it until the endof the paper.
What’s the Purpose of anIntroduction in Scientific Writing?
What’s the Purpose of anIntroduction in Scientific Writing?
• Provide the context of your work (createyour research space, define gap inknowledge, set up the direction you’ll takein your discussion section).
• State your focus (hypothesis, question).
• Provide justification for your work (howyour work can answer the question).
The BIG 3 of Introductions:Context, Focus, and Justification
The BIG 3 of Introductions:Context, Focus, and Justification
• Context: Orient your reader to the publishedliterature related to the study you are presenting.
• Focus: Define your research space, stake outterritory. What question are you addressing? Whatis your hypothesis?
• Justification: Show how your work fits into andextends previous work. Argue for the importanceof your work.
CARS ModelCARS Model
Create a Research Space
1. Re-establish significance ofresearch field.
2. Situate actual research inthese terms.
3. Show how this niche will beoccupied and defended.
What are Some Common Pitfalls of anIntroduction Section?
What are Some Common Pitfalls of anIntroduction Section?
• Including unnecessary background or beingrepetitive.
• Exaggerating (or understating) the importance ofyour work.
• Using lackluster openers and weak follow-through in the body of your introduction.
Guidelines for Introductions from TwoScientific Organizations
Guidelines for Introductions from TwoScientific Organizations
From the International Committeeof Medical Journal Editors:
State the purpose of thearticle and summarize therationale for the study orobservation. Give onlystrictly pertinent referencesand do not include data orconclusions from the workbeing reported.
From the American Society for Microbiology:The introduction should supply sufficientbackground information to allow thereader to understand and evaluate theresults of the present study withoutreferring to previous publications on thetopic. The introduction should alsoprovide the hypothesis that was addressedor the rationale for the present study. Useonly those references required to providethe most salient background rather thanan exhaustive review of the topic.
An Example from the NEJMAn Example from the NEJM• Morbidity and mortality among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are related in large part to acute exacerbations,
which occur one to three times per year.1,2,3,4,5,6 Our understanding of the cause and pathogenesis of these exacerbations isincomplete, and the role of bacterial pathogens is controversial.7,8,9,10
• In studies performed decades ago, investigators followed patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease longitudinally, withperiodic collection of sputum samples for culture, to determine whether there was an association between the isolation of bacterialpathogens in sputum and the occurrence of exacerbations.5,6,11 In these studies, the rate of isolation of potential bacterialpathogens from sputum samples during stable disease was identical to the rate during acute exacerbations. This finding led to theconclusion that bacterial pathogens do not cause exacerbations and that their presence in sputum is due to chroniccolonization.7,12
• An increased understanding of the genetic heterogeneity among strains of a bacterial species exposes a major limitations of theolder cohort studies.13 At the time of these studies, it was not possible to differentiate among strains of a pathogenic bacterialspecies. Therefore, all strains isolated from sputum over the course of the study were regarded as identical if they belonged to thesame species. This approach did not allow for the detection of changes in strains over time. More recent studies have shown thatthe immune response to bacterial pathogens after exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is characterized byconsiderable strain specificity, suggesting the importance of differentiation among strains of bacterial pathogens isolated over timefrom patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.14,15,16
• We hypothesized that the acquisition of a new strain of pathogenic bacterial species in a patient with chronic obstructivepulmonary disease who has no preexisting immunity to the strain leads to an exacerbation. To test this hypothesis, we conducted astudy in which we obtained sputum samples monthly and during exacerbations in a cohort of patients with chronic obstructivepulmonary disease. Bacterial strains isolated from sputum obtained during periods of stable disease and during exacerbations weresubjected to molecular typing. This report represents the results from the first 56 months of this study.
• New Strains of Bacteria and Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseas Sanjay Sethi, M.D., Nancy Evans, R.N., Brydon J.B. Grant, M.D., and
Timothy F. Murphy, M.D. NEJM Previous Volume 347:465-471 August 5, 2002
context/focus
hypothesis/focus
justification
context
Today’s In-Class ExercisesToday’s In-Class Exercises• Write a “letter to Neal,” describing 1) your experiences with writing up scientific
content (e.g., lab reports, reviews, research papers), 2) how you would describeyourself as a writer, and 3) your writing goals for 7.021.
• Write brief biographical sketches (about 100 words each) for the followingaudiences: 1) a foreign relative with whom you’d like to stay for the summer and2) a potential summer employer.
• Three research articles will be distributed in class. Review the introductions andbreak into small groups to discuss the features they share and the differencesbetween them. What general properties of introductions can you distill?
• Go to the class discussion board in Stellar (from http://web.mit.edu/7.021/www/),and Meeting 1 Discussion Topic. Responding to the discussion will be the firstthing you do each time you come to 7.021.
Today’s Out-of-Class ExercisesDue by Next Class Meeting
Today’s Out-of-Class ExercisesDue by Next Class Meeting
1. Write a plain-language version (about 250 words) of anintroduction to the research article posted on the course website (http://web.mit.edu/7.021/www/).
2. Find two published research papers in a print or on-linejournal on a topic that interests you. Print or photocopy theintroduction and label the main parts (question/focus, context,and justification). Be prepared to discuss your observations atthe beginning of the next class meeting.
3. Write your introduction for your Long-Term Project choice(See more detailed explanation in Course Description):
i. Understanding your learning in 7.02ii. Presenting Mendel’s pea experiments.iii. Researching the norms of scientific writing.iv. Conducting a textual analysis of scientific writing.v. Writing up your independent research.
