In the complex realm of scientific enquiry, word selection is essential for communicating the importance and precision of results. In scientific reporting, the terms “discovery” and “observed” are frequently employed, each possessing distinct significance and connotation.
In scientific study, linguistic precision is essential. Consequently, phrases such as “discovery” and “observed” fulfil unique functions and communicate varying degrees of importance.
I have perpetually contemplated. What is the source of my curiosity or concern? It pertains to discovery or observation. I must disclose that this write-up may be burdensome for some. To ensure it is properly received and appreciated by both scientific and non-scientific audiences, including the humanities and the arts, I use simple tenses.
Regardless of your area of expertise and concentration, this thought may have occurred to you at least once. This issue arises particularly for authors of esteemed and rigorously peer-reviewed scientific or humanities papers. Therefore, the choice between using “observed” or “discovered” is not contingent upon an individual’s discipline. The writing may resonate with all researchers, so to speak.
Allow me to employ some case studies derived from the publications below to elucidate my thoughts and arguments. I will utilise the example of discovery related to Professor Lena Ma’s research on arsenic and fern, as well as my observations concerning four significant potentially toxic elements and Chromolaenaodorata, often referred to as ‘Acheampong’ in Ghana. Here, we go!
First of all, let us examine the case study presented by Professor Lena Ma. The professor is a leading scientist at the University of Florida in the United States. He initiated an expedition of enquiry. In this context, curiosity will not harm the cat, but rather enhance its knowledge.
The scientist and her research team embarked on a quest to uncover the mysteries of a specific fern, scientifically designated as *Pteris vitata* (shown in image B). Equipped with sophisticated research instruments and relentless curiosity, they explored the investigation of this distinctive plant. The researchers investigated 14 plant species for their capacity to absorb arsenic from contaminated soils.
Image A: A different Pteris sp. plant. A = Pteris vittata; B = Pteris (Pteridaceae); C = Pteris pacifica (Pteridaceae); D = Bracken (Pteridium aquilinum)
Subsequently, when they diligently collect data and evaluate outcomes, they uncover a significant discovery: this fern possesses the exceptional capability to hyperaccumulate arsenic, a characteristic rarely observed in plants. This discovery is revolutionary, introducing a new aspect to phytoremediation and attracting considerable interest from the scientific community. Indeed, Lena Ma is recognised and credited as the pioneering scientist who identified ferns as hyperaccumulating plants for arsenic.
They disseminated a concise communication regarding their findings and published them in NATURE. The article documenting this discovery has garnered over 13,000 accesses and 2,730 citations, underscoring its significance. The fern’s elevated statistics score positions it within the top percentiles of monitored articles, underscoring its significance. The paper is shown in image B.
Image B: Professor Lena Ma’s paper on the discovery of Fern as hyper-accumulating plant for arsenic. Full paper here in this reference:
Ma, L.Q., Komar, K.M., Tu, C., Zhang, W., Cai, Y. and Kennelley, E.D., 2001. A fern that hyperaccumulates arsenic. Nature, 409(6820), pp.579-579
Conversely, consider another team of scientists, including myself and my colleagues, conducting research in Ghana, adjacent to an abandoned gold mine. The results of our study are illustrated in image C. We investigated the health hazards associated with polluted soil in southwestern Ghana.
Utilising advanced technique, we gathered soil samples and transported them to the laboratory at Ruhr University Bochum in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Our investigations revealed that the soil contains excessively high concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, iron, and titanium. These observations are essential for comprehending the magnitude of pollution and the associated health hazards, especially for children and women.
Image C. Root-to-shoot translocation factor (TF) of toxic elements (As, Cu, Ti and Zn) into shoots by the five native plant species near the abandoned mine spoil. Added line indicates the threshold above which plant is considered a phytoremediator. CO= Chromolaena odorata, F = fern, AC = Alchornea cordifolia,LC = Lantana camara, PM= Pueraria montana. Details in Mensah et al. (2021):
Mensah, Albert Kobina, Bernd Marschner, Vasileios Antoniadis, Eric Stemn, Sabry M. Shaheen, and Jörg Rinklebe. “Human health risk via soil ingestion of potentially toxic elements and remediation potential of native plants near an abandoned mine spoil in Ghana.” Science of the Total Environment 798 (2021): 149272.
We noted that the native plant, *Chromolaena odorata* (locally referred to in Ghana as Acheampong), is capable of accumulating arsenic, copper, titanium, and zinc in its shoots. This conclusion, while not revolutionary like the fern’s capability, represents the inaugural extensive study conducted on these specific mining tailings in southwestern Ghana. This observation is crucial for understanding phytoremediation and provides prospective remedies for soil contamination. Why am I unable to use the term “discovered” while reporting my findings?
“Discovery” refers to a substantial, innovative finding that contributes to the current corpus of knowledge. The fern *Pteris vitata* has been identified as a hyperaccumulator of arsenic, an exceptional trait that has attracted much attention from researchers. The fern’s elevated score positions it in the 94th percentile among comparable articles of similar age across all journals and the 66th percentile within Nature.
Conversely, “observed” denotes what was seen or measured during a study, without necessarily suggesting a significant discovery. The soil contamination, particularly with arsenic and titanium, was significant, as indicated by the pollution load index and enrichment factor values in the published article in one of the top journals in the field of environmental pollution and cleaner production.
Indigenous flora such as “Chromolaena odorata” were noted to sequester arsenic, copper, titanium, and zinc in their aerial parts, indicating a possible application for bioremediation. The plant Chromolaena was identified at this site for the first time, to have demonstrated its capacity to remediate titanium in contaminated areas.
Our projects in both scenarios or cases presented above offer a visual depiction essential for understanding and further unravelling the potential of phytoremediation and its efficacy in decontaminating polluted environments. Both fern in Ma’s case and Chromolaena in my case presented distinctive qualities and characteristics for addressing phytoremediation of contaminated and polluted sites.
The distinction between these two narratives or case studies resides in the words employed. “Discovery” may denote an innovative, transformative finding that substantially enhances understanding within a specific domain. “Observed”, conversely, refers to what scientists have recorded and quantified during their research. It signifies the meticulous and systematic procedure of collecting data and documenting phenomena.
In scientific reporting, the deliberate distinction between “discovery” and “observed” is essential for preserving the integrity and credibility of the research. It guarantees that assertions are substantiated by evidence and suitably contextualised, enhancing the clarity and precision of the scientific undertaking.
The endeavours of scientists, whether through startling discoveries or diligent observations, exemplify the unwavering pursuit of knowledge and the need to understand humankind and nature around us. The terms “discovery” and “observed” are essential to this continuous narrative of investigation and comprehension.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
