Writeacher, can you please check if the use of scientific English is OK. Thank you.
1) One of the other prominent scientists involved in the promotion of nanotechnology, Richard Smalley, has accused Drexler of ‘scaring our children’ and promulgating a vision of the future based on poor scientific reasoning.
2) As a matter of fact, currently there are no nanotechnological devices capable of self-replication.Yet philosophers, ethicists and many scientists frequently speak as if such objects exist now, or will in the very near future.
3) Other scientists think that the “grey goo” scenario is only a distraction, because people should focus on the current practices of science and technology, the need for careful oversight and deliberation that attends to current problems and practices, rather than imagine future scenarios.
1) Another promiment scientist*
2) as if such devices exist, or will in the very near future.*
3) people should focus on the current practices of science and technology, there is a need for careful oversight upon current problems and practices, rather than imagining possible future scenarios and outcomes.
1) The use of scientific English in this sentence is generally acceptable. There are a few points to consider for improvement:
- Instead of using the phrase "prominent scientists," it would be more precise to state "One of the other well-known scientists."
- Instead of using the term "nanotechnology," which is redundant here since it has already been mentioned, you could use a pronoun like "it" to refer to the field.
- Instead of directly quoting Richard Smalley by stating that he accused Drexler of "scaring our children," it would be better to use reported speech and write "Richard Smalley accused Drexler of instilling fear in children."
- Lastly, instead of using the phrase "based on poor scientific reasoning," it would be clearer to say "based on flawed scientific reasoning."
So, a revised version could be: "Another well-known scientist involved in its promotion, Richard Smalley, accused Drexler of instilling fear in children and promulgating a vision of the future based on flawed scientific reasoning."
2) The use of scientific English in this sentence is generally accurate. However, there are a couple of suggestions to improve the clarity:
- Instead of using the phrase "as a matter of fact," which can be considered unnecessary in scientific writing, it would be better to use a more straightforward statement. For example, "Currently, there are no nanotechnological devices capable of self-replication."
- In the latter part of the sentence, the use of the phrase "speak as if" could be made more direct and concise. For example, "However, philosophers, ethicists, and many scientists often discuss these objects as though they either already exist or will exist in the near future."
A revised version could be: "Currently, there are no nanotechnological devices capable of self-replication. However, philosophers, ethicists, and many scientists often discuss these objects as though they either already exist or will exist in the near future."
3) The use of scientific English in this sentence is appropriate. However, a slight adjustment can enhance the clarity:
- Instead of using the phrase "the 'grey goo' scenario is only a distraction," it would be clearer to rephrase it as "some scientists consider the 'grey goo' scenario to be merely a distraction."
- In the latter part of the sentence, it would be helpful to specify who should focus on the current practices of science and technology. For example, "people should focus on the current practices of science and technology to address ongoing issues and the necessity for careful oversight and deliberation."
A revised version could be: "Some scientists consider the 'grey goo' scenario to be merely a distraction, and instead suggest that people should focus on the current practices of science and technology to address ongoing issues and the necessity for careful oversight and deliberation."