<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Knowledge Management and Communication in the Life Sciences</title>
	<atom:link href="http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog</link>
	<description>The McCulley/Cuppan Blog on Tools and Strategies for Improving Quality of Knowledge Management and Communication in the Life Sciences</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:08:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>We Are Moving Our Blog and Changing Name</title>
		<link>http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=910</link>
		<comments>http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=910#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:08:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gcuppan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Communication of Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dissemination of Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improving Review Practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Propagation of Knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Teaching Writing to Life Science Professionals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Writing in the Life Sciences]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=910</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We have moved our blog to Google Blogger and changed the name to: http://mcculley-cuppan.blogspot.com/ Putting the blog on a Google server makes it easier for us to focus on the blog content and get away from the hassles of managing &#8230; <a href="http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=910">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=910</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More thoughts on the limited sophistication of documentation practices in the life sciences</title>
		<link>http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=898</link>
		<comments>http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=898#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gcuppan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Writing in the Life Sciences]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Documentation sophistication maturity model]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[documentation work practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical writing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory writing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[writing in the life sciences]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=898</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I mentioned in this post that I consider the documentation practices for creation of regulatory submission documents in most pharma and medical device enterprises to rather unsophisticated. My position is largely driven by comparing observations of documentation practices to descriptions &#8230; <a href="http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=898">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=898</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Designing the architecture of the argument in development reports</title>
		<link>http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=889</link>
		<comments>http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=889#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:25:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gcuppan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Communication of Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Writing in the Life Sciences]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clinical study report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[improving writing practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[logic of the argument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[making arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical writing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[team writing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=889</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kirk Livingston, a teacher and a medical writer working largely in the medical device industry, as well as a fellow blogger at LivingstonContent, shared this comment on my previous post regarding poor rhetorical shaping of arguments in research reports. There’s &#8230; <a href="http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=889">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=889</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Effective argumentation often missing from clinical research reports</title>
		<link>http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=884</link>
		<comments>http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=884#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:12:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>gcuppan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Communication of Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=884</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Much of clinical research reporting associated with regulatory submission strategies must be persuasive writing. In particular, discussions about the significance of study findings and how these findings directly support development claims. To win the point of persuasion, such writing must &#8230; <a href="http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=884">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=884</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>4 Books Every Technical/Scientific Writer Should Considering Reading</title>
		<link>http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=847</link>
		<comments>http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=847#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:31:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jmahajan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Communication of Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Teaching Writing to Life Science Professionals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charles Bazerman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judith VanAlstyne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ken Baake]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Merrill D. Tritt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scientific writing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sharon Gerson and Steven Gerson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technical writing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=847</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This post comes from our colleague, Jessica Mahajan. The following books are ones that  &#8221;new&#8221; technical and scientific communicators should consider reading. The books look at technical writing from different perspectives and will prove useful to the experienced communicator as well. Metaphor &#8230; <a href="http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?p=847">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://brain.brainery.net/mcblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=847</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

