George Orwell's rules on writing: applicable to science?

The 65^th anniversary of George Orwell’s 1984 this year and the BBC is putting on many programs discussing the work of the great author.  Orwell had some very strong views on how things should be written and wrote an essay on the subject about 6 rules that he thought should be at the centre of any piece of writing, so can they be applied successfully to science writing?

•       Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

Phrases such as “play into the hands of” or “the Achilles Heel” are easy to use, but actually communicate very little in most contexts. This happens as well in the scientific literature; I remember being asked to explain the phrase “complexity-generating reaction” during my viva (a phrase well used in several papers). It was pointed out to me that if chemistry is the science of making chemical bonds how was it that my metathesis reaction making a more complex product (surely two molecules are more complex than one?). By thinking about you want to say first and generating your own metaphors a more-powerful clearer effect is achieved.

•       Never use a long word where a short one will do.

Excellent advice! Long words often crop in science and are unavoidable, but frequently they are just there to make something simple sound grand and can make a piece difficult to read.

• If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

Or as my PhD supervisor used to say “just say what you did”; especially in papers, thesis writing or in reports the temptation is to show how much you know about this-or-that area. But actually what people want to know is what you did, why you did it (briefly), how you did it and did it work and to that find out as quickly as possible! 

•      Never use the passive where you can use the active.

A bit difficult in quite a bit of formal scientific writing, but in general it can be used e.g. writing in blogs and websites who try to get people involved in their work or explain it to the interested amateur.

•       Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

This can be difficult as well, science like any expert area requires jargon and it can be very difficult and time consuming to explain what you do without it (though it may well be worthwhile), overuse though certainly does happen and sometimes is unintentionally meaningless. In a scientific context it is probably best thought of as a reason to think about your audience and to explain jargon if necessary as Brian Cox does here.   

•  Break any of these rules sooner than saying anything outright barbarous 

Bit of a catch all but as ever with rules the important bit is to understand them not to blindly follow them! Hopefully this way of thinking could prove useful.