Reflective Essay: Writing in the Genetics Discourse

As a scientist, the foundation of my discourse is communication. Research is useless if

the findings cannot be spread and applied. As a result, it has been fundamental for me to develop

my writing skills throughout my co-op at Boston Childrens Hospital. Within the research

setting, I found it necessary to write in a direct idiolect with consistent fashion. Formatting

inconsistencies can serve to confuse the reader, so paying close attention to small details in the

project at hand is key. My Unit 2 project, DNA Sanger Sequencing Protocol Guide, strictly

followed a consistent structure that served to better orient the reader. Additionally, I learned how

to change my writing style in order to communicate the full depth of my thoughts more

effectively. Identifying these necessary changes required others to provide feedback in revision

club.

Over the course of the semester, I learned to fill holes in my writing. Historically, when

writing something analytical, I would often assume too much of the audience and I would leave

out critical pieces of information that connected two different pieces of literature or ideas. I

would draw similarities between the two ideas, but would expect the reader to synthesize the

connection themselves. As a result, I now realize that I wasnt an effective writer because I did

not always get my point across to the audience. To illustrate an example, Ive quoted the rough

draft of my unit 3 essay:

Whereas somatic cell genome edits would affect only a single individual,

germline genome edits would be passed down to every successive generation.

Due to the potential impact that germline genome edits would bring about on

human evolution, it was agreed that CRISPR would be used in somatic cells only.
 In my mind, these two sentences make perfect sense and the connection between

genome germline edits and human evolution was clear. However, I had not considered my

audience. After my revision partners read over my draft, both of my partnerd were left confused,

so it became clear that I needed to explain how germline genome edits would affect human

evolution, and why that would negatively impact the species. To illustrate this connection, I

revised my draft and added the Black Plague as an example of how genetics can impact human

evolution:

The ability for man to control evolution with CRISPR is a scary thought, as the

resulting limited variability between human genomes could leave the species

vulnerable to catastrophic diseases. For example, one of the key reasons our

species survived the Black Death in the 14th century is because of the variability

of genomes from person to person. During the Black Death, evolution favored

people who carried certain immune system genes. If CRISPR is used to edit

germlines, the variability of the human gene pool will decrease as time goes on,

and everyone may carry the same immune system genes. This opens the door for a

Black Death that our species may not survive.

Adding the example of the Black Death enables the reader to form a bridge between the

gene pool of the human species and human evolution. In this way, I was able to express my

intended conclusion without assuming the reader to synthesize it for themselves.

Ive also learned to apply this method of connecting ideas within text for the material I

read. By thinking critically of science material, I learned how to draw judgements of a literature

piece based on the support of an authors claim. In the scientific discourse, a researcher is
obligated to explain why x+y=z, instead of just stating that x+y=z. Not only does this educate the

audience, it also gives the author more credibility over the subject matter, especially if new

sources of information are introduced.

I gave this advice to one of my unit 3 revision partners: Eric Jacques. Eric J worked on a

paper that explained the diagnosis of the ACL injury, and he included a diagram of a few

questions that were traditionally asked to patients who are thought to have torn their ACL as

diagnosis. However, the diagram didnt include any explanation as to why the questions were

asked, and did not include the expected answers for a patient with a torn ACL vs a healthy

patient. I felt these details were necessary to draw a connection between the injury and the

following healthcare.

The science community is built upon the relentless asking of questions. As questions go

unanswered in documents that are weak in support, lack of understanding of the audience

follows. As a result, I have learned that it is imperative to leave no stone unturned in the

explanation of scientific material. Connections between ideas or sources can be brought very

close together, but without the use of specific examples to illustrate the connection, the author

runs the risk of leaving the audience confused. By far the most important aspect of scientific

literature are the details, which this course has taught me to pay close attention to in my future

writing.
 I believe that I have put in excess effort in seeking to connect the goals of this Advanced

Writing course with my professional life in my co-op. Many of the thoughts and ideas that I

expand upon in this reflective essay are ideals that I have strived towards for written

communication in my co-op. I have had the goal to be as thorough as possible when writing in

my discipline, and this is what I stress in importance throughout my reflective essay.

In this reflective essay, I have included ways in which I have improved in my writing

throughout the semester, and have included examples of others writing to provide further

support for my claims about the importance of detail in scientific disciplines. Each unit

throughout the course has allowed me to expand my palette and attempt writing in different
forms. I have often surpassed my own expectations for the writing assignments, and I believe

that the best writing of my life has come out of this semesters hard work.