SCIENCE DIALECTS - long post

[DAK]

I have permission from SCIENCE WEEK
http://www.scienceweek.com
to post the followeing to the ADS-LIST
- A.B.

2. SPOTLIGHT: ON SCIENTIFIC TERMINOLOGY

J.L. Heilbron Worcester College, UK discusses terminology in
science and make the following points:

1) The history of scientific terminology opens a royal road to
the history of scientific culture. The eighteenth century, which
spent much of its intellectual energy classifying and
summarizing its burgeoning knowledge, devised terminology that
transformed botany and chemistry. The binomial designation of
natural species introduced by Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) and
the systematic names of chemical compounds invented by Antoine
Lavoisier (1743-1794) and his collaborators remain in use,
although they are not free from damaging idolatry. Linnaeus
embedded his binomials in a system of arithmetically defined
taxa that sometimes put species in the wrong families. The
French chemists admitted the substance caloric, which does not
exist, among their elements, and coined "oxygen'' on the
mistaken idea that the gas so designated gave acids their
acidity. But the terminology, erected on the enlightened
principles of rationality, order and universality, proved
flexible enough to drop erroneous reifications (like caloric)
and ignore misnomers (like oxygen).

2) After the Second World War, Americans gained by priority of
discovery the right to name the elementary particles. Their
terminology tended to be facetious and jocular. Thus, quarks in
their various flavors and colors; gluons to paste quarks
together; quantum chromodynamics, which does not study color;
and GUTs and TOEs, not body parts but Grand Unified Theories and
Theories of Everything. Did the jocularity indicate the easy
confidence of people who felt close to finishing physics? It
certainly demonstrated that the sober conservatism of European
scientists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had
given way to the flippant equality of Americans during their
time of world dominance. The playful names coined by high-energy
physicists have been criticized as inelegant, non-ancient,
capricious and misleading. No doubt it is unlucky that quark
means garbage in German, but gluon is an inspired put-on: it
looks Greek, means nothing in German, puns in English and
satisfies Bacon's requirement that a word express a clear and
distinct idea.

3) Genetics and molecular biology have a taxing and awkward
terminology. Students of fruit flies favour bouncy names in the
style of particle physicists: armadillo, hedgehog,
lost-in-space. Mouse geneticists like dull ones, such as
beta-catenin, which happens to be the same gene as armadillo. A
single gene (selectin L) has 15 different aliases, whereas MT1
refers to at least 11 different genes.The cure for this genetic
disorder is a computer, which identifies a gene not by its name
but by systematic descriptors.

Nature 2002 415:585

Web Links: scientific nomenclature     scientific jargon

Related Background:

HISTORY OF SCIENCE: ON LANGUAGE REFORM IN CHEMISTRY

An argument can be made that nomenclature in science is as
important as data, since nomenclature represents the prevailing
conceptual organization of observations. Certainly, researchers
in most sciences are constrained to adhere to the nomenclature
rules of their field. Molecular biology is currently in a phase
of general nomenclature chaos with respect to the naming of
genes, but hopefully that phase will soon pass. Meanwhile,
nomenclatures in other areas of biology are more organized, and
18th century plant taxonomy, in fact, served as a model for the
nomenclature revolution in chemistry that occurred in
conjunction with the "new chemistry" proposed by Antoine
Lavoisier (1743-1794).     Lavoisier is often cited as the
instigator of chemical nomenclature reform at the end of the
18th century, but four chemists were the prime movers of this
reform: Lavoisier, Louis Guyton de Morveau (1737-1816), Claude
Berthollet (1748-1822), Antoine Fourcroy (1755-1809). Of the
four, Guyton de Morveau, probably deserves more credit than the
others, his efforts culminating in the publication of his
_Method of Chemical Nomenclature_ in 1787 [*Note #1]. All the
above chemists, however, collaborated in the nomenclature
revision program, which quickly became accepted after the
publication of Lavoisier's influential textbook _Elementary
Treatise on Chemistry_ in 1789 [*Note #2]. Perhaps the most
important general nomenclature revision was the adoption of a
binomial scheme for naming compounds (influenced by the scheme
then current in botany), but of specific importance was the
renaming of "*dephlogisticated air" ("empyreal air; vital air)
as "oxygen", and the renaming of "inflammable air" as
"hydrogen", both new names based on prevailing knowledge of
chemistry rather than on ambiguous attributes.

Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent (University of Paris, FR) presents a
commentary on language reform in chemistry, the author making
the following points:

1) Guyton de Morveau initiated the French 18th century chemical
nomenclature reform project and established a set of basic
principles: a) nomenclature should reveal "the nature of
things"; b) simple substances should have simple names evoking
their most characteristic property; c) compound names should
express the composition of chemical compounds; d) Greek
etymologies should be used in preference to Latin.

2) Guyton de Morveau began his attempt to reform chemical
nomenclature in 1782 and submitted his project to the Paris
Academy of Sciences in January 1787. At the Academy, Guyton
encountered a fierce debate concerning the existence of
"phlogiston", the principle that was believed to explain
combustion and reduction. Although most chemists at that time
believed in phlogiston, Lavoisier's explanation of combustion
was quite different. Guyton allied himself with Lavoisier, and
with the help of Lavoisier, Berthollet, and Fourcroy, Guyton
published a revised project in the spring of 1787, the revision
making no mention of "phlogiston", but instead containing new
words such as "oxygen", from Greek words meaning "acidifying
principle", the new term stemming from Lavoisier's idea that all
acids contained oxygen.

3) The author points out that the language reform of 1787-1789
was an integral part of the formation of the autonomous
discipline of chemistry, contributed to the subordination of
pharmacy to chemistry, and contributed to the redefinition of
the chemical arts as applied chemistry. The new language forged
by academic chemists separated many users of chemical substances
from their own traditions. The new language ignored the
physiological senses of chemists, banished all reference to
geographical origins or the discovery of the substances, and
imposed an analytical quantitative logic on chemical
nomenclature. Although the use of this logic proved to be a
valuable method over time, the principles of the system were
never strictly applied. Oxygen, for example, should have been
renamed when Humphrey Davy (1778-1829) established that many
acids do not contain oxygen. Colors and odors were restored
after the discovery of chlorine and iodine, named from the Greek
for "yellowish-green" and "violet", respectively. Bromine was
named from the Greek word for "stink". Morphine was named after
Morpheus, the god of dreams. Benzene was named after Styrax
benzoin, a tree native to Sumatra and Java. Scandium, germanium,
and polonium were named after political entities, and in the
20th century various new elements were named after historical
scientific figures. In general, the systematization imposed by
the four 18th century reformer chemists in the name of
rationality remained an ideal often contradicted by practice. At
present, nomenclature rules in chemistry are under the control
of a permanent commission, the International Union of Pure and
Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).

Nature 2001 410:415

Text Notes:

... ... *Note #1: Louis Bernard Guyton de Morveau (1737-1816)
was an interesting personage. His first profession was that of
an attorney. In 1776, while still an attorney, he published the
_Elements of Theoretical and Practical Chemistry_, a major
attempt to quantify chemical affinities. In 1782, he gave up the
law and devoted himself full-time to chemistry. In 1795, he
founded the Ecole Polytechnique and taught there until 1805.
Guyton was one of the first to conclude that iron and steel
differ solely in their carbon content. He made improvements in
the manufacture of gunpowder. He was the first to use chlorine
and hydrochloric acid gas as disinfectants. He was one of the
first balloonists, making two flights in 1784 and helping in the
organization of the world's first air force, the Compagnie
d'Aerostiers, whose reconnaissance balloonists assisted the
French army in several battles during the Napoleonic wars.

... ... *Note #2: Concerning nomenclature in chemistry, the
following passage appears in Lavoisier's _A General Introduction
to Chemistry_ (1789):

"It is impossible to dissociate language from science or science
from language, because every natural science always involves
three things: the sequence of phenomena on which the science is
based; the abstract concepts which call these phenomena to mind;
and the words in which the concepts are expressed. To call forth
a concept, a word is needed; to portray a phenomenon, a concept
is needed. All three mirror one and same reality. Words are thus
required to preserve and transmit ideas, so that it is clear
that the advancement of a science and the improvement of its
technical vocabulary go hand in hand. No matter how certain we
are of the phenomena, no matter how adequately our concepts
reflect them, we cannot help perpetuating wrong ideas unless we
have a precise terminology in which to express ourselves."

Lavoisier, considered the father of modern chemistry, was no
doubt the most eminent scientist to ever suffer death by the
guillotine. In 1780, as a member of the French Academy of
Sciences, Lavoisier was active in rejecting the application to
the Academy of a certain physician Jean-Paul Marat (1743-1793).
Marat apparently did not forget. During the French Revolution
(1787-1799), Marat became a powerful revolutionary leader, and
Marat was instrumental in bringing Lavoisier to trial for his
investments in a much-hated company that collected taxes for the
French government. Lavoisier was guillotined May 8, 1794 and
buried in an unmarked grave. (Marat did not live to see this:
Marat himself was assassinated in July 1793.)

... ... *dephlogisticated air: In this context, the term
"phlogiston" refers to a 17th and 18th century chemical theory
involving a hypothetical principle of fire. The idea was that
every combustible substance is in part composed of phlogiston,
with the phenomenon of burning caused by the liberation of
phlogiston and the "dephlogistonated" substance remaining as ash
or residue. The phlogiston theory was experimentally discredited
by Lavoisier beginning in 1770, who showed that the newly
discovered element oxygen was always involved in combustion.

Related Background:

ON LINGUISTIC CHAOS IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Nomenclature anarchy in molecular biology is apparently once
again the focus of attention, although no remedies are evident.
In a recent article, Paul Smaglik writes, "Gene and protein
names often are based on the flamboyant, the descriptive, and
the intentionally obscure. For many researchers, naming their
discovery may be a rare opportunity to imbue their science with
creativity." But Lawrence Puente (University of Alberta, CA)
points out that creativity plus competition can equal confusion.
Julia A. White (University College London, UK), a member of the
Nomenclature Committee of the Human Genome Organization, says
that although the committee strives to sort out linguistic
chaos, the committee remains behind as a result of the speed and
scope of the Human Genome Project. With hundreds of thousands of
genes and proteins still to be named, molecular biology is in
dire need of nomenclature regulation.

The Scientist 30 Mar 1998

Related Background:

MORE DISCUSSION OF ACRONYM ANARCHY IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

There are approximately 100,000 genes in the human genome, and
approximately 100,000 expressed proteins, the total certainly
enough to require a dictionary of names. Add to this total the
total of acronyms used to identify cell-lines, cell receptors,
metabolic pathways, carbohydrates, etc., and the dictionary
would require a second volume. In the early days of biochemistry
and molecular biology, when few genes and their expressed
proteins had been identified, everyone could more or less
remember the names of the macromolecular entities being studied
by the people in the laboratory down the hall. These days that
is unlikely, and made more unlikely by the tendency of many
molecular biologists to choose ad hoc names that are often more
cute than technically pertinent, and to obfuscate their research
papers with acronyms by the dozen in a single paper. We know of
at least one instance where an acronym for a cell-line in a
paper from a group at the US National Institutes of Health was
not defined anywhere in the paper, where telephone calls to
molecular biologists produced no one who knew what cell-line was
involved, and where a query to the authors of the paper did not
produce a response for nearly three weeks. As one scientist
recently put it: "If you make your paper difficult to read, at
least no one can call you stupid." A recent exchange of letters
in the journal Nature revisits this recurrent problem of
nomenclature in molecular biology. It seems there are indeed
existing committees concerned with regulating the nomenclature
of molecular biology, but it also seems no one pays any
attention to them. Puente et al (Univ. of Alberta, CA) refer to
the present situation as "acronym anarchy". We agree. We would
add that if the in-house editors of the leading general journals
such as Science and Nature would refuse to publish these unduly
obfuscated papers, they would be doing a service to the
scientific community.

Nature 1997 390:329

Related Background:

A CRITICISM OF NOMENCLATURE IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Nomenclature is a serious problem in all the sciences, since as
new discoveries are made, new entities identified, new concepts
formulated, new names for these things must be found so that
scientists can communicate with each other with some degree of
precision. Most sciences have nomenclature committees that meet
regularly to standardize current terminology and make decisions
about new terminology. Molecular biology, one of the most active
scientific disciplines these days, has no such constraints, and
apparently there is growing concern that the arbitrary and
sometimes whimsical naming of new entities ("miranda",
"prospero", "numb", "inscrutable") in molecular biology, with
the same entity often sporting a number of names, has reached
the stage of promoting confusion and the inability of scientists
to deal efficiently with the literature. In a recent editorial
criticizing nomenclature practices in molecular biology, the
journal Nature says, "Regrettably, molecular biologists have
followed the particle physicists' whimsy with obscurantist
enthusiasm." In particle physics, of course, we already have
"quark", "strangeness", "charm", "color", "top", "bottom", etc.,
which the editorial calls a "descent into whimsy" started by
Murray Gell-Mann in the 1960s, who evidently took the term
"quark" from a phrase in James Joyce's FINNEGAN'S WAKE. What is
interesting is that the same journal which is criticizing
whimsical scientific nomenclature is apparently quite fond of
headlines involving whimsical wordplay, puns, and metaphors when
describing scientific research results. If a consequence of this
attention to nomenclature will be a more rational use of
language in science, many people will no doubt be appreciative
of it.

Nature 1997 389:1

Related Background:

PHYSICISTS ORGANIZE AGAINST IMPENETRABLE JARGON IN PHYSICS

A group of working physicists and journal editors, under the
leadership of Mitio Inokuti (Argonne National Laboratory, US)
and Ugo Fano (University of Chicago, US) has come into existence
with the objective of reforming the publication standards for
papers in physics. The problem is that physicists no longer
understand each other, their communication warped by
"unexplained acronyms, cryptic symbols, endless sentences, and
monstrous graphs". Analyzing the psychology of why this exists,
Phillip Schewe (American Institute of Physics, US) says, "You
lose all your readers, but at least you can't be accused of
being an idiot. Instead, the readers are made to feel like
they're idiots." The problem, of course, is just as severe in
chemistry and biology.

Science 1997 277:895

ScienceWeek http://www.scienceweek.com