Why a Simple Word is Reshaping Science
From Lab Notes to Lay Readers: Making Science More Human
Explore the ResearchImagine a world where robots run all scientific experiments. Test tubes are filled by automated arms, data is analyzed by cold algorithms, and the final research paper is generated by a computer, stating only that "the compounds were mixed" and "the data was analyzed." This impersonal picture is not far from how scientific articles have been written for decades. For generations, scientists were taught to remove themselves from their own work, using a passive, third-person voice to project an air of absolute objectivity. But a quiet revolution is underway in the halls of academia, one that is putting the "I" and "we" back into the quest for knowledge 2 6 .
This shift is more than a matter of grammar; it's a fundamental change in how scientists communicate their work, making it more direct, clearer, and ultimately more human. The journey of the first-person pronoun—"I" for the solo researcher and "we" for collaborative teams—from taboo to acceptance reveals a deeper understanding that science is, at its heart, a human endeavor. By embracing their own voice, scientists are not only improving their writing but are also building a crucial bridge of understanding with the public, showing that behind every discovery is a curious person, not just a faceless institution 6 .
Scientists believed that removing themselves from the text would make the work seem more objective and impartial, shining the spotlight solely on the data and results 6 .
The passive voice presented findings as if they were timeless, universal facts, rather than the interpretations of specific researchers at a particular moment 6 .
In a field that is a collective enterprise, emphasizing one's own contributions was often viewed as self-promotion and a lack of modesty 6 .
"However, this style came at a cost. It often created writing that was dull, abstract, and difficult to read. It could obscure who actually performed an action, leading to bizarre, wizard-like descriptions where 'the solutions were diluted' as if by magic, with no human hands involved 6 ."
The shift away from this tradition is not just anecdotal; it is a measurable trend documented by researchers and persistent authors.
The researcher performed a historical analysis of a well-respected agricultural journal. The method was systematic 2 :
The first issues from key years spanning a century—1923, 1943, 1963, 1983, 2003, and 2023—were selected for examination.
Within the articles and notes of these issues (143 articles in total), the researcher searched for first-person pronouns ("I," "my," "we," "our") used by authors to refer to themselves.
The researcher also recorded the percentage of single-authored and multiple-authored papers for each of the selected years to provide context.
The findings, summarized in the table below, show a dramatic and clear trend.
| Year | Single-Authored Articles | Articles Using First-Person Voice |
|---|---|---|
| 1923 | 100% | 0% |
| 1943 | 78% | 11% |
| 1963 | 30% | 20% |
| 1983 | 18% | 50% |
| 2003 | 4% | 85% |
| 2023 | 6% | 88% |
Table 1: The Rise of First-Person Voice in a Century of Scientific Literature 2
The data tells a powerful story. As single-authored papers became increasingly rare, the use of the first-person voice exploded, rising from 0% to 88% over the century. A follow-up review of 154 articles published in the same journal in 2023 found that 137 of the 152 multiple-authored papers used "we" and "our," while the one single-authored paper that self-mentioned was still using the outdated "the author" 2 . This experiment demonstrates that the first-person plural is now the dominant voice in modern scientific literature, marking a profound cultural shift in the field.
Just as a laboratory requires specific tools to conduct experiments, effective science communication relies on a set of rhetorical tools.
| Tool | Function | Example |
|---|---|---|
| First-Person Pronouns (I, we) | Creates clarity, directness, and humanizes the researchers. It attributes action and ownership. | "We conducted the assay" is clearer than "The assay was conducted." 2 6 |
| Active Voice | Makes sentences more dynamic and easier to read by clearly stating who performed the action. | "I analyzed the data" is stronger than "The data were analyzed." 6 |
| Style Guide Endorsement | Provides authoritative backing for using first-person voice, giving writers confidence. | Major guides like APA, Chicago, and AMA all encourage using "I" and "we" for clarity. 6 |
| Storytelling | Engages the reader by framing the research within a narrative of discovery, including challenges and insights. | Sharing a sampling mistake and how it was resolved makes the process relatable. 2 |
Table 2: Key Tools for Modern Scientific Communication
The evidence is clear: the scientific community is increasingly embracing the first-person voice. This is not a rejection of objectivity, but a pursuit of a higher form of clarity and precision. Leading scientific organizations have updated their style guides to reflect this. The American Psychological Association (APA) explicitly states, "Do not use the third person to refer to yourself," while The Chicago Manual of Style wryly notes, "When you need the first-person singular, use it. It's not immodest to use it; it's superstitious not to" 6 .
Scientific writing used passive voice and third-person to create an illusion of objectivity.
First-person voice gains acceptance as studies show it improves clarity without sacrificing rigor.
Science communication embraces narrative, personal voice, and transparency about the human element of research.
This evolution in writing makes science more robust. It allows scientists to take clear responsibility for their work, own their interpretations, and write in a way that is more accessible to peers and the public alike. The human element of science—the curiosity, the late nights, the collaborative problem-solving—is being reintegrated into its most important product: the published paper. By using "I" and "we," scientists are not weakening their work; they are strengthening the very bridge that connects their research to the world, reminding everyone that science is a story of people, for people 2 6 .