Scientific English : A Guide for Scientists and Other Professionals 2nd Edition

Rating:
Summary: Good book, but . . .
Review: I have worked as a science writer and editor for years and purchased this book with the intention of using it when working with investigators writing papers, grants applications, etc. (especially with those investigators for whom English may be a second language). Overall I think the book is quite good, and provides clear and concise advice and guidance (as well as numerous examples) on proper English language.

Perhaps it is just a pet peeve of mine, but I take issue with Mr. Day's discussion of the use of the words "that" and "which." Although he provides examples of how the meaning of a sentence can change with the alternate use of "that" and "which," his conclusion is that, if it doesn't change the sentence, use either. To quote from the book, Mr. Day says, "Who gives a damn?"

Well, I do. I'm not a "which-hunter," as Mr. Day describes some, but there are specific instances where these words are to be used, even if the meaning of a sentence doesn't change with either use, and he acknowledges this. Advocating a dismissive attitude about the rules is tantamount to propagating poor English in a society already replete with poor speakers and writers.

Despite this, I would recommend this book to anyone wishing to improve his command of the English language.

Rating:
Summary: The best short book for scientific/technical writing
Review: I'm a technical writer by profession, and taught technical writing for 10 years. I've used this book and Day's "How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper" as textbooks, as well as in the workplace. This is the most succinct, practical, and helpful guide for scientific and technical writing on the market -- and I've looked at an awfully lot of guides! It's easy to use, and often very funny. Also, it's a good example of the clarity and brevity he advocates (this is not, unfortunately, true of many technical writing textbooks). Finally, I heartily concur with Day's belief that "Simplicity of expression is a natural result of profound thought." I've heard many scientists deplore the poor state of scientific education in the U.S. and the rise of "bad science." In my opinion, this is the fault of scientists themselves for not making their methods and results more accessible to the general public. Day's guidelines are an important step in the right direction, and I hope more scientists follow them.