The title of this post might be a little misleading. It is a play on words, as the term “has-been” refers to “one that has passed the peak of effectiveness or popularity” according to Merriam-Webster. But this post is not about washed-up scientists. In this post I would like to discuss a style issue I come across fairly frequently in scientific writing that is problematic. That is, a phrase that is something like “ (noun) has been …”. I will discuss this phrasing and why is it a problem using several examples that I selected arbitrarily from the recent literature linked from my Google Scholar page. I don’t identify the papers or authors because my intent is not to criticize them, but rather to critique the language patterns. I removed references for ease of reading.
Example 1:
Here is the first example, a paragraph with some sentences removed to streamline it. The problem parts have been bolded.
“This interaction has been shown to reduce FIT degradation and to maintain FIT in an active state, therefore, promoting iron uptake. … Mediator, a large protein complex coordinating the transcription process, has been identified to be involved in the regulation of gene expression during iron deficiency. … Additionally, MED16 was shown to associate with EIN3/EIL1 proteins through subunit MED25, which may play some roles in FIT stabilization. … MYB72 has been shown to control the synthesis of another type of iron-chelating molecules, known as coumarins, more specifically scopoletin. Interestingly, MYB72 was also found to interact physically with Sulfur LIMitation 1 (SLIM1), one of the very few transcription factors known to regulate sulfur metabolism.”
Let’s walk through these one by one. “This interaction has been shown to reduce FIT degradation and to maintain FIT in an active state, therefore, promoting iron uptake.”
I see two possibilities here. One is that the author does not believe the results to be generalizable. The interaction “has been shown” in the specific example cited, but the author does not believe it will happen at other times, or that it has to be demonstrated each time to be believed. I doubt if that is the intention in this case, based on the context.
The second possibility reveals insight into the author’s thought process as he or she is writing, that is, they are writing about how the result was discovered rather than writing about the knowledge generated from that process. “Has been shown to reduce” refers to the empirical nature of science, that we only can base knowledge on what can be observed, directly or indirectly. The experiments were done to “show” that FIT degrades, or not, when the interaction takes place. The reason I find this construction problematic is because the author should be telling us about the state of knowledge in the field, but instead is telling us about the process, therefore there is a disconnect between what is intended to be conveyed and what is actually being said. It is a trap we can fall into as scientists, especially when we are actively working at designing and conducting experiments.
The fix for this problem is simple; rewrite in the present tense and focus on the knowledge, not the process. “This interaction reduces FIT degradation and maintains FIT in an active state, therefore, promoting iron uptake.”
As a bonus, the revised sentence has a much more active construction. The original verb was a passive compound “has been shown”, and “to reduce” and “to maintain” were constructed as passive adverb add-ons. Now the verbs are active; “reduce” and “maintain”. As another bonus, the sentence is 5 words shorter, going from 21 words to 16 words.
The second sentence is “Mediator, a large protein complex coordinating the transcription process, has been identified to be involved in the regulation of gene expression during iron deficiency.”
This one is difficult to read and seems to be based entirely on the author thinking in terms of process rather than knowledge. Is there any reason for it to be past tense? Why point out that it was identified? That is obvious; if it had not been identified it would not be known and it would not be in this sentence in the first place. A simple fix is to change “has been identified to be” to “is”.
For the remainder of the sentences, the fix is the same; omit the passive past tense and activate the passive adverb.
“Additionally, MED16 associates with EIN3/EIL1 proteins through subunit MED25, which may play some roles in FIT stabilization. … MYB72 controls the synthesis of another type of iron-chelating molecules, known as coumarins, more specifically scopoletin. Interestingly, MYB72 interacts physically with Sulfur LIMitation 1 (SLIM1), one of the very few transcription factors known to regulate sulfur metabolism.”
Example 2:
“There is also a need to identify molecular players involved in ascorbate secretion and regeneration. Moreover, even though FRD3 has been proposed to be responsible for citrate efflux in the intracellular space separating the maternal tissues and the embryo, this hypothesis would need to be substantiated and other transporters potentially involved in citrate and malate efflux need to be identified.
In this example, it does seem as if the authors are skeptical of the finding. It appear that this idea was floated in a publication, but the authors don’t feel like the results are solid enough to move forward. They are essentially calling for additional work on the proposed idea. In this case, I suggest that they do not change the phrasing. It is signaling their meaning well, while respecting the process of science.
Example 3:
“Micronutrient availability is sensitive to soil pH; it has been reported that minimal changes in pH have drastic effects on the solubility of micronutrients in soil. … Recently, it has been reported that the removal of the secreted phenolics from a hydroponic culture solution significantly enhances Fe accumulation and Fe deficiency responses in roots; this is attributed to the inhibition of solubilization and utilization of apoplasmic Fe. Moreover, phenolics such as protocatechuic acid (PCA) are reported to chelate Fe (III) and solubilize and reduce it to Fe (II) in vitro.”
In this example, the author is clearly thinking about process over knowledge, focusing on the fact that these points were reported at some point in the past. Again, this is obvious and does not need to be stated. If it was not reported (published), nobody would know about it and it would not be cited or discussed here. In the first instance, the authors can simply delete the phrase. “minimal changes in pH have drastic effects on the solubility of micronutrients in soil” is adequate without telling us that someone reported this fact. The same fix will work with the third sentence.
The second sentence, however, requires more analysis. “Recently, it has been reported that the removal of the secreted phenolics from a hydroponic culture solution significantly enhances Fe accumulation and Fe deficiency responses in roots; this is attributed to the inhibition of solubilization and utilization of apoplasmic Fe.” We need to know whether this knowledge being recent is relevant to the work in this publication. If the recency of the finding is not important, the entire first 6 words are not necessary. If recency is important, and this paper will go on to dispute the finding, it might be appropriate to retain the passive phrase that signals doubt about the finding. Or maybe the recency of the finding cause a change in approach that needs to be brought to the forefront.
Example 4:
“In parallel, Pumpkin_164349, which our study showed to be associated with pickleworm tolerance, aligns with CmoCh15G001520, a clathrin heavy chain protein encoding gene orthologous to MELO3C008306 that has been observed to be upregulated in Fusarium infections.”
This sentence has two of these passive constructions, but they are serving different purposes and we need to look at them separately. The first one is stating one of the results of the present study. As such, it is appropriate to focus on the process of demonstrating or showing this knowledge. The second one, however, is more questionable, that a certain gene’s expression “has been observed to be” upregulated. Why is the sentence constructed this way? Knowing about gene expression studies, I know that they do not always produce the same results. Study one might show gene X is upregulated by stimulus Y, but study two did not produce that result. Maybe that is the case here, the result has been observed once or twice, but not consistently in the literature. If that is the case, I would leave this phrase as is.
Examples 5 and 6:
“In Arabidopsis, the P450/CYP78A gene family has been shown to be extremely relevant to floral organ growth and seed size, and CYP79B2 and CYP79B3 are critical enzymes in auxin biosynthesis in vivo.”
“In recent years, the YSL family has been reported to not only facilitate Fe3+-DMA uptake from the rhizosphere but is also involved in iron unloading into the phloem.”
These two sentences are problematic not just because of the “has been” phrasing, but also because the author switches from passive to active verbs within the sentence. The second (active) form should be used. “… the P450/CYP78A gene family is extremely relevant …, and CYP79B2 and CYP79B3 are critical enzymes …” and “the YSL family not only facilitates … but is also involved in …”. Remember to use parallel construction in your sentences!
Example 7:
“Soybeans are self‐pollinating and accessions can be maintained as pure lines, however within‐accession genetic variation has been observed in previous studies of some landraces and elite cultivars.”
Again in this sentence, the author makes a switch within the sentence. This time the switch is in point of view, made even more awkward because of the passive “has been” phrase. We see that at the beginning of the sentence, the topic is soybean accessions, but in the second phrase, the topic becomes genetic variation, even though landraces and cultivars are present in the phrase. It seems like the author got hung up on how the knowledge was created (by observation in previous studies) and lost track of what they were trying to convey. Here is how I suggest rewriting this one: “Soybeans are self‐pollinating, and accessions can be maintained as pure lines, however, some landraces and elite cultivars contain within‐accession genetic variation.”
I hope that helps. As you can see above, sometimes using “has been” is acceptable or even appropriate. However, most of the time you should try to notice when these constructions are focusing on process rather than knowledge, and remove them as you are editing.