Are medical writers scientists?
Medical writers’ claim to scientist status can rest on their role within a research team and on the scientific knowledge their work requires. The question also involves whether medical writing is an art, a science, or both.
Scientific identity within a research team
One argument for scientist status treats medical writers as research specialists whose contribution is communication rather than bench work. In this argument, the scientist’s identity, title and prestige need not belong only to researchers and theoreticians.
The argument contrasts modern specialisation with the generalist scientist: when the word “scientist” was coined, less than 200 years before 2016, scholars such as Alexander von Humboldt studied chemistry, biology, geography and physics as well as linguistics, philosophy and theology, made their own observations, drew illustrations and wrote manuscripts. Expanding knowledge and new technologies divided disciplines into smaller specialties, allowing biomedical researchers to build entire careers on one molecular pathway or cell type; interdisciplinary discovery therefore requires specialists to work together. The argument holds that the usual image of a scientist working alone in a laboratory fails to recognise this team, and that the word’s meaning should develop with scientific practice. Viewed as one scientist, the team has data-gathering pharmacologists, immunologists and geneticists as its eyes and ears, and medical writers organising the data into clear text as its hand.
The analogy with scientific photography distinguishes the purpose of a skill from its mechanics: scientists once sketched disease symptoms, microscopic observations and new species, and now use cameras. A studio photographer and a scientist taking a photomicrograph use the same principles of framing and light exposure, but the latter conveys a scientific message as a specialist. On the same reasoning, medical writers use mechanics shared with fiction and other nonfiction writers while applying scientific knowledge to communicate science accurately and solve research teams’ communication problems. In this view, medical writers do not undertake bench work or experimental planning, but neither do they simply take dictation.
The argument makes clear communication central to scientific progress: unclear wording may cause a government to deem an experiment unethical, an ambiguous protocol may cause disbelief of a result, and a poorly explained theory may cause public fear. Good writing can speed discovery and acceptance of scientific theory, whereas poor writing can cause rejection of a new hypothesis. The hypothetical example is Darwin’s On the Origin of Species: had it presented jumbled facts rather than convincing arguments, the theory of evolution might have been delayed by decades. Under the definition of a scientist as someone trained in science whose job involves scientific research or solving scientific problems, this argument gives medical writers a claim to the identity, prestige and title.
Scientific knowledge alongside the art of writing
A second argument distinguishes the art of constructing text from the science required to apply its content. The constructive aspect of medical writing is an art like other writing, but complex scientific content and audiences that include scientists and medical professionals prevent classifying the entire activity as an art.
This argument holds that science and writing cannot be separated without impeding scientific progress: medical writing provides communication within and between researchers, assessors, clinical professionals and the public. Although its purpose and audience determine the form of communication, it is always based on complex science, which must be applied appropriately—a task requiring more than wordsmithing. The scientific case rests on biological knowledge, expertise in its medical application, relevant specialties such as pharmacology and pharmacokinetics, and competence in methods such as statistical analyses and epidemiology, enabling writers to extrapolate and interpret data for readers. It also rests on writers’ scientific and ethical responsibilities in advancing global human health, their ability to work across science and medicine, and their enthusiasm for medical science. On this reasoning, expert scientific knowledge, an active contribution to medical advancement and these responsibilities distinguish medical writers from other writers and exceed the definition of a scientist as someone studying or possessing expert knowledge of one or more natural or physical sciences.