Sydney Lang

12-1-17

English 110-C

 

Biology Writing

Below is a sample of a writing assignment for another course at UNE, the Ecology and Evolution Biology Lab. The assignment required that the student recorded a concise and clear description of the Methods and the Results for the Phagocytosis in Tetrahymena lab experiment.

Sydney Lang

Biology 105 Lab-C

Exercise 10a

11-21-17

Phagocytosis in Tetrahymena

Methods:

For the control group (Tetrahymena without chemical) four microcentrifuge tubes were labeled C3, C6, C9 and filled with 100 µl of iodine. The iodine acted as the stop solution by killing the Tetrahymena. The fourth tube was labeled control and was filled with Tetrahymena and carbon solution. Next, 450 µl of Tetrahymena culture and 450 µl of the carbon solution was added to the control tube. After the tube was swirled, the timer was started. At three minutes 100 µl of the control solution was put into the tube labeled “C3.” At six minutes 100 µl of the control solution was put into the tube labeled “C6” with a new pipette tip, and at nine minutes 100 µl of the control solution was put into the tube labeled “C9.” A wet mount was made for C3, C6, and C9 and the number of food vacuoles was counted and recorded of the first ten Tetrahymena seen per sample. For the experimental group (Tetrahymena with chemical) four microcentrifuge tubes were labeled 3X-U, 6X-U, 9X-U and filled with 100 µl of iodine. The fourth tube, labeled X-U, with 200 µl of the stock chemical and 200 µl of the carbon source inside. Once 200 µl was added to X-U tube, the timer was started. As in the control, at three, six, and nine minutes 100 µl of the X-U solution was put into the 3X-U, 6X-U, 9X-U tubes. A wet slide was made for each microcentrifuge, and the number of food vacuoles found in the first 10 Tetrahymena observed were counted and recorded. This process was repeated again, only changing the amount of stock chemical from 200 µl to 2 µl and the labels to: X-2U, 3X-2U, 6X-2U, and 9X-2U.           

Results:

Mean number of food vacuoles in the Tetrahymena at each time were measured as the following: No Chemical(Control Group)= 3minutes/.9 as the mean, 6/2.5, 9/3.3. For 200 µl of Stock Chemical= 3/1.2, 6/3.1, 9/4.1. For 2 µl of  Stock Chemical= 3/.6, 6/1.6, 9/1.7.

Figure 1: Mean number of food vacuoles counted is shown for each of the three studies, No Chemical(Control), 200 µl Stock Chemical, and 2 µl Stock Chemical. The mean is shown comparing the three times that the samples were taken for each study group (at three, six, and nine minutes).

End of Lab Report Assignment.

Framing Statement:

Throughout the course of English 110-C I have become equipped with many tools necessary for writing a well developed piece of literary work. When writing for a Biology assignment, there are certain subtle limitations that accompany the assignment. These limitations are why you seldom see a lab report with humorous aspects woven throughout it. I wonder who came up with this unspoken rule? I think that it may be rooted in how direct and blunt scientific writing must be for the sole purpose that it needs to be clear enough that it can be replicated. This idea of dull but direct writing ties into Steven Pinker’s ideas that he conveyed through his article, “Why Academics Stink at Writing.”  From The Chronicle of Higher Education, where Pinker’s essay was posted, he elaborated on the many components that contribute to making bad writing. This relates to my work in for my Biology Lab course as our reports are designed to lack creative flair. This form of writing could easily carry over to other assignments where a zesty personality is encouraged to have a place within your writing. As Pinker states, “Fog comes easily to writers, it’s clarity that requires practice,” at first I found this to be a unique way to describe academic writing. After analyzing the quote further, I could readily come u with multiple examples of foggy academic work. One of which being many medical reports. They are clear to the writer, but often with such an in depth knowledge that the reader cannot reciprocate, creates this fog of confusion. Also within my own work, for the Biology Lab Report, if I had read that academic writing before I had taken the course, I myself probably would not have been able to completely understand what was going on throughout the report without seeking further clarification from an external source. Prior to taking the Biology Lab course, I could not tell you what a Tetrahymena was. This comes to show why it is so vital for academics to learn how to, as Pinker might say, not stink at writing. This would allow for greater communication across all forms of writing. This English 110 class has helped better my academic writing, as I stress the importance of clarity and directness in my pieces of literary work outside of English class. This has been reinforced through our lessons focused on shorter sentences with Klinkenborg as our model. In addition, when we used other writing methods including architectural drafts, TRIAC paragraphs, and many others from the books They Say, I Say and The Little Seagull. In conclusion, from this English 110 class I have learned the steps and processes necessary to prevent my work from “stinking” as Pinker would state it.