Over the summer, I posted a list of words I banned from my science writing class at Shoals Marine Lab. Readers offered some equally abysmal suggestions. And this fall, teaching a seminar at Yale, I came across some others. I suspect that this list is just going to keep growing. So I’m giving the list a home here, where I can add in new entries as they arise.
By assembling this list, I don’t mean to say that no one should ever use these words. What I mean is that anyone who wants to learn how to write about science, and to be read by people who aren’t being paid to read, should work hard to learn how to explain science in plain yet elegant English–not by relying on scientific jargon, code-words, or meaningless cliches.
Access (verb)
Anomalous
Breakthrough (unless you are covering Principia Mathematica)
Captive observation
Community ecology (this ban does not extend to the subject of community ecology)
Component
Context
Demographic leveling
Elucidate
et al
“Further research is needed” (or anything like that)
Holy Grail
Immunocompromised
Impact (verb)
In vitro
In vivo
Insult (referring to an injury)
Intermediate host
Interaction
Literally (even if it’s used accurately, the word is generally useless)
Marine environment
Material properties
Mechanism
Methodology
Miracle (or Miracle cure)
Missing link (don’t get me started…)
Mitigation
Molecular systematists
Morphology
Multiple (as in many? Then just use many)
Non-marine environment
Novel (the adjective is banned. The noun, as in War and Peace, is fine.)
Optimum
Paradigm shift
Parameter (also, parameterize)
Phylogenetics
Predator-Prey Relationship
Processes
Proxies
Regime (unless you’re referring to Mobutu in Zaire)
Seminal
Sustainability
System (as in, “He chose mouse as a system to study”)
This (if there is no antecedent in sight)
Transmissibility
Trivial
Utilize
Via
Virulence
We (as in “We now know the fatality ratio of the current H1N1 influenza epidemic.” We includes your readers, most of whom don’t know–yet.)
![[Image of crier: Wikipedia]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Billy_Clark_town_crier_Nantucket.jpg){kind=link}
November 30th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Will you be explaining what’s wrong with these words, or is it supposed to be obvious?
November 30th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I noticed that in:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24460/
MIT does not go in for the Harvard: Leonard Hall et al or Leonard Hall and others, but the altogether more matey: Hall and co. or Hall and his mates.
Of course, I have no objection to et al – but I am sometimes surprised at the number of papers that I have co-authored.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
What about “holy grail”? For years, Charles Petit has been leading the charge against this overused metaphor.
http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/2009/07/20/wired-holy-moly-holy-grail-is-1/
[Carl: Was it ever underused? I doubt it. Thanks for the reminder.]
November 30th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
This list says as much about the writer as about the words. So interaction, process, mechanism, and context are targeted. But what about genetic (as in ‘x is genetic’), inherited, gene (as in ‘researchers have discovered the x gene’), determined, innate, hard-wired, and a host of similarly misused and misunderstood words?
Just wondering…
[Carl: There are so many words out there to be added to the list. Don't read too much into what's there so far.]
November 30th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Kind of sad – on one hand, yes, difficult and/or obscure words will make writing harder to read. On the other hand, where could you pick up vocabulary if not through reading?
November 30th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Which PM? or any?
Anders Eg
November 30th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Can I get a moment of silence for morphology and paradigm shift?
If I had a 40, I’d pour it on the curb.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Strong agreement about “anomalous.” If it was unexpected then say so. If it doesn’t fit other data in a set then say so. Specify what you mean. Anomaly is only slightly better. If I see the word “anomaly” repeatedly it better be a space-time anomaly and it better involve Riker and Data talking about how they are modifying the deflector shields to emit a phased tachyon burst to either probe it, close it, or stop the Cardassians from using it in some bad way.
(Incidentally, apparently the default spell checker for Firefox does not include the word “Cardassian”)
November 30th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
I believe Voice of America and several other media outlets aiming for non-native speakers all define some version of simple English with a vocabulary of around 1500-1800 words, few or no idiosyncratic expressions and a restricted grammar. As much as possible things are explained using this basic set of words (and it is surprisingly expressive), and when absolutely necessary extra words are brought in but defined in detail. It sounds completely natural and is very easy to understand.
If you aim for that same basic subset of English you can short-cut the need for an ever-expanding list of frowned-upon vocabulary. Just state that writers should use this subset of the language when possible to be clearly understood by all.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
But the missing link IS the holy grail. Elucidating cellular morphology and predator-prey relationships will most likely result in a paradigm shift that will hardly be trivial. We believe the impact of this breakthrough will fundamentally (there’s another one for you) change our views on the origin of mankind, although of course further research will be needed before we can utilize this knowledge.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Jeez Carl, you’re banning “et al”?? I can’t decide whether this is jaded or idiosyncratic.
Why not just pull a Mr. Burns and ban the letter “e” from all science writing?
December 1st, 2009 at 7:53 am
I have to disagree with “We” in one case: I really dislike it when using it as a professor teaching to his class. But sometimes I use “we” to mean “humans”, to emphasize science achievements as belonging to all of us. Kind of balances the “you freaky scientists” view, in my opinion.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:13 am
This is just about as useful as some of the ’style tips’ in Strunk & White, and equally amusing to read, as well.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:54 am
List is double plus good!
December 1st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
I think there are two types of trouble words:
1. sloppy thinking words. These are over-used metaphors, etc.
2. science jargon. These are science words that scientists use as shorthand. They are not sloppy thinking, but the problem is that scientists frequently don’t recognize which of their words are specific to their field and which are common.
Science jargon can be tricky. Sometimes the scientific use of the word can be very precise and have a lot of communicative value. But the words may sound familiar and, if not defined, be used in a sloppy, imprecise way that is incorrect or misleading.
It’s valuable to introduce scientific terms if the words conceptualize complex ideas. Frequently these terms may sound familiar, being based on common words. Especially in these cases it’s important to make the definitions clear. These words or phrases can slide into jargon if the specific meaning is lost.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Please add “designed” to the list–as in “the animal was designed to live in the water!”
December 1st, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Reading Janne’s post at 9 and Joshua Zelinsky comment on spell check at 8, I had a flash of brilliance.
Too bad I’m not a programmer.
If anyone wants to run with this idea, give me a footnote somewhere. Use the same type of programming that spell check uses. Instead of giving the correct spelling of the word ‘methodology’, have the program give the appropriate synonym from the Voice of America dictionary. You could easily convert a document into ‘plain English’.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:26 pm
What’s wrong with impact as a verb? After all, it was a verb first. Merriam-Webster has it listed as both transitive and intransitive, with a earliest known use of 1601 (etymology: “Latin impactus, past participle of impingere to push against”). Moreover, their Dictionary of English Usage notes that the admonition against it only dates back to 1982, and has no foundation to speak of.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Blake — I think “impinge” is a better descendent of “impingere,” if you’re looking for one. “Impact” seems okay to me if used literally (e.g. a meteor impacting a planet) but not in the sense of “having an effect upon,” and certainly not in place of “affect.” (Don’t mention the sense of an “impacted” wisdom tooth.) I think the problem is sloppiness and overuse, not some kind of literal wrongness.
December 1st, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Janne’s comment above includes several examples of hyphenated terms – all of them correct, as far as I can tell. The current trend appears to be to ignore the need for hyphenation, and to pile words atop each other, leaving the reader to sort things out.
Though they are not words, per se, the non-use and, more rarely, incorrect use of hyphens might fit well in your list. Used correctly, they make clear what the writer has in mind. When a writer ignores the need for them, an unnecessary burden is placed upon the reader. I find this more offensive than the correct use of some listed word which has become trite through overuse.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Why not? Because it’s a widely-known instance of people who are not middle-management jargonistas using the word?
If the word in question were, say, paradigm, I’d buy the claim of “sloppiness and overuse”. But impact has a well-defined meaning, it hasn’t driven synonyms out of circulation, and its figurative sense has been well-established in professional prose for longer than I’ve been alive.
Of two words which the lexicographers treat as effectively synonymous, why is one “a better descendent” of their common ancestor? If one is used sloppily and to excess today, wouldn’t a wholesale replacement just make the newly favoured child become equally overused?
December 1st, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Um, “we”, by the way? If we were more than one person doing the research it seems awfully harsh to have to pretend your coworkers don’t exist just to satisfy some rather muddled idea of simplicity.
I mean, what do you suggest? “I – by which I mean me and a dozen coworkers but I can’t really say that – have found this exciting science stuff. When I (and all the others in the project) started this work, I (and those other people) could never have imagined these results. As I excitedly discussed this with myself (since I have to ignore the personal plural) I found myself in some disagreement over the meaning. One of I believed genetic factors where most important, while another ones of myself thought environment was critical. In the end I resolved the disagreement with myself and I am now able to announce this exciting result.”
December 1st, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Re Janne on “we.” Please note the example I gave. If you were writing an article about research you and someone else did together, I obviously would have no objection to your use of “we.” But all too often, people use it to refer to some hazy, ill-defined community that shares some common goal and knowledge, and that includes both the writer and the reader.
Re Blake: Often when people use “impact” as a verb, the word communicates a hazy feeling of influence. There is almost always a better word that can take its place.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Carl, the example really is not good either. If you say “I now know the fatality ratio of the current H1N1 influenza epidemic”, then there, in the air, will hang the implied “…and I will not tell you unless you give me ..One Billion Dollars! Muahahaha!” (pinky in mouth strictly non-optional).
And you can’t say “You now know the …” since you haven’t told the audience yet. Unless you have, in which case “We now know the …” is perfectly fine as it refers to the speaker and listener together.
The only real alternative I can come up with is removing the pronoun altogether: “It is now known what the fatality rate …”, or “The fatality rate … is now known.” Which strikes me as a far graver – and more common – stylistic impediment to understanding than “we” could ever hope to achieve.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Well, why even bother with “we know”? Why not just state the facts as if the “we know” is implied?
My writing is often redundant and I can edit things to death.
Speaking of that, I wish I could edit blog comments here like I can on Bad Astronomy. Is that an option you can enable Carl? I can usually find and fix mistakes within 15 minutes as Phil allows.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:14 am
The paper I’m writing currently is about parameterized Euclidean curves in 3-space. I’d really hate to have to replace every instance of all the related “parameter” words
=P
[Carl: This post is not about how to write mathematics papers.]
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:43 am
Wow. Low SAT students must make great writers. Their vocabularies lack most of these words.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:09 am
Carl – does your objection to “we now know” extend to “we now know that the earth is round”? Or does it only include sentences referring to pieces of knowledge not actually contained in the sentence (”we know know the ratio” without specifying what the ratio is), or not likely to be known to the reader in advance? Does it involve a value judgement on whether or not the reader is likely to already know the fact in question? And what alternative do you suggest for the H1N1 example?
One alternative that comes to mind is “scientists now know…”, but this implies that the knowledge is available only to scientists. The point of using “we” is to emphasize that the information is available to any interested reader.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
@ Captain Skellet
But surely we must utilise optimum methodologies to study the molecular systematic basis of virulence and transmissibility of H1N1 or, as it is more correctly known, THE SWINE FLU PANDEMIC OF DEATH (SFPOD). It is vital to contextualise the processes of anomalous intermediate host interactions with immunocompromised individuals, the mechanism of access, and suitable treatment regimes using novel proxies previously considered trivial. To appropriately parameterise such a study, we must also take into account demographic levelling.
Breakthroughs have been made using a community ecology approach. Construction of phylogenetic trees using morphological features, habitat data (e.g. marine vs. non-marine environments) and examining of predator-prey relationships using captive observation has understandably been of limited use because of the ‘missing link’ effect; however, seminal research carried out by Smith, et al, using this approach has lead to promising therapies which address the insult by mitigating the effect of systemic infection, the so-called ‘miracle cure’. It should be noted that the sustainability of such an approach has been questioned. Although such therapies have brought about a paradigm shift in our approach to treating the disease, further research is needed into the material properties of drug deliverers.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
So I mentioned this before when you published the list, and didn’t get an answer: please, what’s wrong with “intermediate host”? I work on parasites, and need to know!
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Marlene–Sorry for the oversight. Only use “intermediate host” if you feel that “host” is just not sufficient–but only use it once you’ve explained what an intermediate host is. Casually dropping it into a piece of popular writing will just add to the confusion.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Well I do get weary of seeing optimum where optimal should be used, but…
December 4th, 2009 at 4:16 am
Dear Carl,
Can you please make an exception for “impact” for the study of collisions in the asteroid belt and planetary cratering?
December 4th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
[...] Carl Zimmer has posted an “Index of Banned Words” in science writing. Zimmer’s list grew out of a list he compiled for his science [...]
December 5th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Social Contract and Social Compact, I can never figure out exactly what is supposed to be shrinking.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Mechanism? Really? No use of the word mechanism?? Isn’t that what a large aspect of biology is trying to figure out!?
[CZ: Perhaps. But you can find more interesting ways to talk about science than referring to mechanisms. Remember, this is for writing about science, not doing or reporting science.]
December 7th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I’m a little confused: which “Principia Mathematica” were you referring to?
The 1687 one by Newton, or the 1910-1913 volumes by Russell and Whitehead?
December 8th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
It is not obvious to me why a word like “mechanism” or “process” are jargon. It seems condescending to imply that the average reader needs to be protected from difficult words. Sure you can say “the way X works” or some other silly phrase instead of mechanism, but c’mon how does a reader improve his or her vocabulary if not by being exposed to a richer vocabulary?
[CZ: I'm all for exposing people to a rich vocabulary--but a vocabulary drawn from great literature, not from a lexicon of jargon. By falling back on a pat and not very meaningful term like "mechanism" means that a writer won't search for an original, evocative expression.]
December 9th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Re your response in #38. I have to respectfully disagree. Why should vocabulary be drawn primarily from literature and not from the scientific tradition? Many eloquent and evocative terms have come from scientific jargon – think of the term “Evolution” or “Radioactivity” (OK, in the case of evolution its usage was altered by science). I remember way back in college during a biology class the professor explaining something or another about developmental biology, and then asking, “Can anybody think of what the possible mechanism behind this is?” And upon hearing this word in this context for the first time, it evoked in my mind some sort of vast clockwork image of molecules and genes working together as part of some crazy machine. After that, I was hooked into becoming a scientist, and into figuring out “mechanisms”.
I don’t see what’s wrong in introducing this terminology, which you deride as jargon, to the general public. If done properly, it could be just as evocative and elegant as something coming from literature.
Of course, who am I to argue, since I really like your writing…
December 10th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I do biomechanics. I use “mechanism” to describe mechanical elements of a system, and will probably continue to do so.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:24 am
If I hear or see “moreover” again I will scream! It is lazy and pretentious. Or is that magniloquent or effusive. (wink, wink)
I hear the bleating of sheep when “moreover” is used! Or is that the Pink Floyd CD my neighbor is playing.
Throw in “dynamic” too while you’re compiling..
January 11th, 2010 at 8:16 am
Instead of banning words, why not ban malapropism, and ban jargon that could be mistaken for common usage? Choosing words for a non-specialist audience does not necessarily entail choosing words for illiterates.
January 11th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
How about about “magic”?
As in news pieces referring to advances in science (or even established techniques) as “magic”?
“The codes for extinct animals were thought to have died along with them, until recently, when machines like one at the Smithsonian’s DNA lab started working magic.”-60 Minutes, Could Extinct Species Make a Comeback?
“It’s not magic, it’s science!”, I shout, exasperatedly.