Although with all of these findings, it can not be proved that 13-cRA disrupts the skin barrier, the hypothesis of 13-cRA’s facilitating irritation and sensitisation reactions required for contact dermatitis development via its effects on immunity and skin barrier is supported when the literature data is considered.

Another sentence example of what I'm trying to mean:

We can not prove that 13-cRA disrupts the skin barrier with only these findings but when literature data is considered, this study results (or results from/of? this study) support the hypothesis indicating that 13-cRA facilitates the irritation and sensitisation reactions required for contact dermatitis development via its effects on immunity and skin barrier


Eliminating the passives and nominalizations would make the sentence easier to parse:

These findings do not prove that 13-cRA disrupts the skin barrier; but taken in conjunction with the data in the literature they do support the hypothesis that 13-cRA facilitates, through its effects on immunity and the skin barrier, the irritation and sensitisation reactions which contact dermatitis development requires.

It's still pretty complicated for the lay reader, but probably clear to an audience of experts in the field.

  • Thanks a lot! Your comments are improving my point of view! Dec 3 '17 at 21:38
  • Isn't scientific writing supposed to use passives? Dec 4 '17 at 3:36
  • @Andrew Grimm: Scientific writing uses passives in place of "we did such and such" constructions. There's no overarching rule to replace active with passive. Dec 4 '17 at 4:26

Yes, it is too complicated. It is a wall of words lacking punctuation.

Break it into smaller ideas, and then connect them.

The sentence reads as if written by someone with a lot of hubris but little knowledge – do you understand me..., rather than a clear and obvious narrative.

When talking to experts, you can use specialist terms they know. But to any audience (or when writing), make your explanations clear, simple and progressive.

Don't bundle everything into one sentence.

  • Thank you for your answer, but I have another question. What is your implication when you say '' little knowledge"? This is an honest question and I will take your answer into consideration. I'm trying to add a new perspective to what I'm doing. Little knowledge implicates: bundling or it implicates: a big grammar crash? If I added some punctuation marks, would it be ok or understandable? Thank you very much in advance Dec 3 '17 at 21:33
  • 1
    Sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything about your own knowledge, just about the way such complicated sentences sometimes "blind people with science". Sometimes people write such sentences with the intention of saying a lot, but actually say nothing easily comprehensible. At other times such a sentence can be little more than jargon. Dec 3 '17 at 21:38
  • No problem even if you implied something about my knowledge, I'm really open to all kind of criticism that will make me go further with a new point of view, so thank you very much. Dec 3 '17 at 21:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.