Clarity, Brevity and Subject Matter!

What a week this has been!  Christmas is next week!  Where did 2016 go? I swear that years become shorter the older I get.  I’ve had a few things on my mind this week, but something I have been seriously considering is what is important in writing scientific documents. 

I think there are three key areas that are important when writing a scientific document, clarity, brevity and subject matter.  Clarity, because if no one can understand my writing, I may as well not write.  If someone is reading the results of an experiment and is confused about what the results are, then the entire experiment was a waste of time!  I can imagine nothing more disappointing then putting in the work required to undertake an experiment, only to have it be deemed pointless as no one can understand it. 

Brevity is extremely important.  While you must ensure to clearly explain the points in a document, pontificating and waffling must be avoided at all costs.  For two reasons, primarily because waffling is boring and someone reading a scientific document really just wants the facts.  Secondly, by introducing needless words, the door is being opened to a reader misinterpreting the document.  If the document is clear and brief, the key points will be impossible to misinterpret. 

Finally, subject matter must be taken into consideration.  Taking the time to understanding what research has been done before and ensuring that your document adds to the knowledge in this area, will make your document a “must read” in the field.  Without researching others input in the field you run the risk of just parroting what someone else has written before, even though you may have written it yourself.

Well, this probably hasn’t been the most exciting Pre-Christmas blog you have read this year.  However hopefully you can incorporate these thoughts when writing your next scientific document and aim for clarity, brevity and a positive addition to the subject matter. 

Merry Christmas!

Finishing my Position Paper!

This week I finally finished my position paper.  Well, “finished” is too final a word.  In reality I wrote enough words, attempted to proof read, gave up and submitted it.   Fingers crossed it cuts the mustard!  I did learn a lot about organ donations while researching for the position paper.  I read a lot of interesting perspectives on how organ donations could be allocated.  While I had always originally thought that a medical needs based system was the fairest allocation method, I eventually ended up changing my view. 

A preferential organ allocation system based on whether an individual is a registered donor is prescribed in an article published by Breyer & Kliemt (2007).   While they do not recommend excluding non donors (individuals not registered to donate organs) from the organ recipient pool, they do recommend offering a slight positive preference to registered donors.  They argue that by increasing the amount of registered donors, the amount of organs donated will increase, allowing more people to receive organ donations.   

Chandler (2005) has an opposing view, she argues that preferential systems disadvantage those in religious or ethnic minority groups who are unable to become donors based on their beliefs.  Furthermore, she argues that it will also disadvantage those who lack access to quality medical information, such as the elderly or the mentally ill. These two groups are more isolated that the standard population and may have less ability to understand the consequences of deciding to register as a donor, or not.  She believes that disadvantaging those who may not have had the ability to register is very unfair. 

In the end I do agree with those that argue for a priority distribution system based on prioritising those who had previously agreed to become donors.  It will increase the potential organ availability, which will benefit both those who are prioritised and those who are not registered donors. 

Refernces:

Breyer, F., & Kliemt, H. (2007). The shortage of human organs: causes, consequences and
            remedies. Analyse & Kritik, 29(2), 188-205.

  Chandler, J. A. (2005). Priority systems in the allocation of organs for transplant: should we reward
            those who have previously agreed to donate?. Health law journal, 13. 

A dreary slog through the information highway

I spent this week frantically searching for academic journals to use in my position paper.  The topic I chose was; should people who are not willing to be organ donors be allowed to be organ recipients?  I found this to be an interesting question, but initially difficult to research. 

I began by searching key terms through google scholar and I found articles which increased my understanding of the organ donation process.  The key terms I used were organ donation, priority, recipient and eligibility.  Unfortunately, I did not find information regarding the allocation of donated organs.  I also tried searching Psychnet, but had the same results. 

I took a step back from the academic sources and did a standard google search on the topic.  This linked me to several websites, such as the Ministry of Health NZ, Ministry of Health Israel, Ministry of Health Singapore and the World Health Organisation.  It turns out that both Singapore and Israel already implement a priority system for those who are on the donor list.  By having specific examples of how this topic was already applied in the real world I was able to choose better key terms to enter into Google Scholar.

I updated my key terms to include Israel or Singapore and was finally able to find articles which were relevant to my topic!  Some of the articles I located were criticising Israel’s priority system and others were praising it.  I then used the key words for the articles I could find to expand my set of key words and was able to find another 5 relevant articles, just by slightly tweaking my search. Finally, I had enough information to start drafting my position paper. 

Next time I research a topic like this I am going to start with a basic Google search.  Ensuring I understand the topic and researching the real world applications.  Using real world applications of the topic as key words I expect to have greater success when searching academic journals.  I enjoyed researching this, now on to writing my position paper!