2

Consider the following sentence from this answer:

Had there not been modern communication platforms across the globe, scientific progress would have been impossible.

Now I want to give more explanation to the cause and effect. I wonder if it is correct to add "due to ..." at the end of the sentence? I have to explain how lack of modern communication affects scientific progress.

Had there not been modern communication platforms across the globe, scientific progress would have been impossible due to lack of contribution.

Is it a good modification? Does it clarify the relation between the two or it just makes the sentence more complicated?

1

"Had there not been modern communication platforms across the globe scientific progress would have been impossible" is long and a bit clunky!

This is shorter:

Without modern, global communication platforms, scientific progress would have been impossible.

If you were happy with that, the sentence could continue with as... or because...

I don't know what 'contribution' means here, but perhaps you could say:

...because no-one would have contributed
or
...as there were insufficient contributions (or no contributions).

"Due to" is happiest accompanying the verb to be:

his illness was due to smoking
not:
he became ill due to smoking.

But it is used more freely nowadays and my misgivings may be due to my age.

"lack of contribution" needs either 'the' or 'a' before it. And it should be plural:

  • the/a lack of contributions.

'a shortage' might be better than 'a lack'. If there were none at all 'an absence' might be better.

1

You may also consider the use of the expression

for lack of

MWebster defines it as

not having (the thing specified)

So your sentence would look like this

Had there not been modern communication platforms across the globe, scientific progress would have been impossible for lack of contributions.

I agree that contributions needs to be in the plural.

1

It's grammatically fine, but stylistically I don't think it's a good modification. It makes an already long sentence longer, and doesn't add a lot of clarity. If you feel the connection between the two concepts needs additional support, consider a new sentence.

I would also suggest that it may not be necessary at all, depending on your audience. I expect most people are comfortable with the connection between communication and scientific process.

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.