From passive observations to active discoveries - how first-person perspective is transforming scientific communication
We've all encountered them—those densely written scientific papers that seem to drain personality from the most exciting discoveries.
The standard third-person passive voice—"it was observed," "the researcher concluded"—has long dominated scientific literature, creating an illusion of faceless, emotionless science proceeding without human intervention. But what happens when scientists break this convention and embrace their own voice? What changes when a researcher writes "I discovered" rather than "it was discovered"?
The answers might surprise you. Across scientific disciplines, from biology to agriculture, a quiet revolution is underway as researchers rediscover the power of first-person storytelling.
This shift represents more than stylistic preference—it's transforming how scientists communicate their findings, making research more accessible, transparent, and engaging without sacrificing rigor. Science journalist Alexander Johnson, who covers scientific literature and discoveries for The New York Times, represents the bridge between specialized research and public understanding where voice matters profoundly 1 .
This article explores the science behind scientific writing itself—why personal voice matters, how it enhances rather than diminishes scientific credibility, and what this means for the future of how we communicate breakthrough discoveries.
For much of modern science's history, first-person pronouns (I, me, my, we, our) were considered inappropriate in scientific writing. This tradition stemmed from several deeply-held beliefs:
Research reveals several significant drawbacks to this traditional approach:
This writing style conjures images of laboratories where test tubes clean themselves and data magically appears—no human intervention required.
The 21st century has witnessed a dramatic shift in attitudes toward first-person writing in science. This change is driven by several factors:
Recent studies of scientific literature reveal a significant increase in first-person usage across disciplines. Analysis of agricultural journals shows first-person usage in scientific articles has surged from 0% in 1923 to 88% in 2023 2 . This trend reflects a broader acceptance of personal voice in scientific communication.
Interestingly, this shift varies by field. Biology papers, especially those focusing on plants and animals, frequently employ first-person pronouns, while education researchers, who study human subjects, use them about half as often . This variation suggests disciplinary cultures evolve at different paces regarding writing conventions.
A revealing 2024 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences meticulously tracked the use of personal pronouns in a well-respected agricultural journal over a century 2 . The researcher—initially frustrated by journal editors requiring him to change his first-person writing to third-person—decided to systematically investigate how common first-person usage actually was in his field.
The researcher employed a straightforward but rigorous approach:
0% of articles used first-person pronouns
11% of articles used first-person pronouns
20% of articles used first-person pronouns
50% of articles used first-person pronouns
85% of articles used first-person pronouns
88% of articles used first-person pronouns
The study revealed dramatic changes in scientific writing conventions over the past century, as shown in the following data:
| Year | Single-Authored Articles | Articles Using First-Person | Sample Size |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1923 | 100% | 0% | 4 |
| 1943 | 78% | 11% | 9 |
| 1963 | 30% | 20% | 26+ |
| 1983 | 18% | 50% | 26+ |
| 2003 | 4% | 85% | 26+ |
| 2023 | 6% | 88% | 26+ |
Table 1: Historical Trends in First-Person Usage in Agricultural Journals 2
| Category | Number of Articles | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Total articles surveyed | 154 | 100% |
| Multiple-authored articles | 152 | 99% |
| Used first-person plural (we, our) | 137 | 89% |
| Single-authored using "the author" | 1 | 0.6% |
Table 2: Contemporary Analysis of First-Person Usage (2023) 2
This research provides compelling evidence that:
Scientific writing conventions are not static but evolve significantly over time
The personal voice has shifted from exception to norm in this scientific field
First-person plural dominates contemporary scientific writing, reflecting collaborative research models
Effective first-person scientific writing requires more than simply adding "I" or "we" to traditional papers.
| Element | Function | Example |
|---|---|---|
| First-person singular (I, my) | Clearly identifies single-author decisions and actions | "I designed the experiment to test..." |
| First-person plural (we, our) | Signals collaborative work in multi-author papers | "We analyzed the results using..." |
| Narrative structure | Creates logical flow and enhances reader engagement | "We initially expected X, but when we observed Y, we revised our approach to..." |
| Active voice | Creates direct, concise sentences | Instead of "It was concluded," use "We concluded" |
| Selective use | Employing first-person where it adds clarity or acknowledges subjectivity | Using "we" in methods, but limiting interpretive first-person in results |
Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for First-Person Scientific Writing 2
Based on analysis of successful scientific writing and style guide recommendations, first-person pronouns are particularly effective when:
Even strong advocates of first-person writing recommend strategic restraint:
The goal isn't to eliminate the researcher from scientific writing, but to position them appropriately—as an active participant in the discovery process rather than an invisible observer.
The evidence is clear: first-person writing is becoming increasingly accepted across scientific disciplines, from biology to agriculture to medicine 2 . This transition reflects science's growing recognition that clarity and engagement strengthen rather than weaken scientific communication.
As one researcher involved in the agricultural journal study noted, "It's time for scientists to embrace first-person pronouns and move beyond outdated notions that those powerful, short, gender-neutral, easy-to-read words are somehow inappropriate in science writing" 2 .
The implications extend beyond journal articles to how scientists communicate with broader audiences. Alexander Johnson's popular science writing for The New York Times exemplifies this approach—making complex topics like virology and cell biology engaging for general readers through compelling narrative and clear explanation 1 .
For aspiring scientists and science communicators, the message is clear: embrace your voice. Whether writing for specialized colleagues or the general public, the personal voice offers powerful tools for making science more transparent, engaging, and accessible.
The future of scientific storytelling isn't just about what we discover—it's about how we share those discoveries with the world.
As the scientific community continues to evolve its communication practices, one thing seems certain: the human behind the research is becoming increasingly visible, and science is better for it.
References will be added here in the appropriate format.