The roles of science and science writing in society are often ill defined and controversial.  Some scholars assert that science deserves more influence in society (Huxley 162), while others claim science, as currently defined and practiced, plays too large a role (Fischer 196).  Others are discontent with science’s seeming exclusivity (Burroughs 147).  And yet others are content with science’s practices, conclusions, and practitioners, but dissatisfied with its modes of communication.

Science has long been characterized by, whether accurate or not, impersonal, procedural routines that are generally applicable and universally effective.   The language of science often mirrors its routines and practice. Mary Rosner, author of the article Values in Doing and Writing Science, claims quantitative data, symbolic language, generic forms and passive voice (all hallmarks of technical science writing) create inaccessible and conventionalized descriptions of scientists’ activities and findings.  These inaccessible descriptions result in an incomplete understanding of conclusions that seem objective and inevitable (Rosner). 

The realities of science writing differ from science’s characterization as objective, unfeeling, and apathetic.  Science and Literature, authored by John Burroughs, is one of the earliest essays to recognize the unreasonable classification of science and the classification's problematic implications.  Burroughs exposes the growing distrust between literature and science, “Science and literature in their aims and methods have little in common.  Demonstrable fact is the province of the one; sentiment is the province of the other” (152).  Later, he calls for reconciliation among science, literature, and other disciplines, “Until science is mixed with emotion, and appeals to the heart and imagination, it is like dead inorganic matter; and when it becomes so mixed and so transformed it is literature” (Burroughs 149).

Other scholars also call for reconciliation among science and other disciplines (Worsley 47).  If science and philosophy, science and art, science and literature, could no longer be discerned, what type of a world would we live in?  What type of science would we read?  It would undoubtedly be more interdisciplinary, and would  likely be more accessible, artful, and relatable to general audiences and situations.  Of course, then we may feasibly ask, “What is and what is not science?”  While this question remains important, it should be the subject of another, perhaps more extensive, literature review or doctoral thesis. 

One question this literature review should at least attempt to answer is, “Who should do
science writing?”  Should scientists, journalists, novelists, students, or poets do science
 writing?  A quote by Burroughs successfully evades the question, “The true poet and the true scientist are not estranged.  They go forth into nature like two friends.  Behold them…The interests of the two in the universe are widely different, yet in no true sense are they hostile or mutually destructive” (Burroughs 162).  Good science writing, in my humble opinion, can spill from the pens of poets, scientists, students, and almost anyone with a dedication to truth, skepticism, and curiosity.