In Defense of Cliches

Bora Zivkovic of A Blog Around the Clock and Ed Yong of Not Exactly Rocket Science alerted me via Twitter to an article in Wired Science by Betsy Mason entitled "5 Atrocious Science Cliches to Throw Down a Black Hole". In short, the article claims that "Holy Grail", "Silver Bullet", "Shedding Light", "Missing Link", and "Paradigm Shift" are overplayed, tired terms that should be banned from scientific reportage.

Betsy Mason is wrong.

We need cliches. We depend upon cliches, and cliches are quite useful in the proper context. While it may be true that the above terms do get thrown about quite a bit, they're still quite useful. Science journalism is already a convoluted field that must continually walk the line between being too esoteric for its mainstream, non-scientist audience and maintaining proper accuracy to satisfy its scientific constituents, which keeps information flowing. Banning the use of any widely understood vehicles for explanation just raises the barrier to effective communication between science and the public. And when we, as a scientific community, have already made it clear that we're not usually pleased by the transmission of our findings to the public through the prism of science journalism, do we really need to throw in even more barriers?

This article indulges in a great deal of unfortunate professional myopia. From the perspective of a scientist, calling research, such as active in vivo RNAi therapy, the Holy Grail of cancer research will seem inaccurate given the breadth of other therapies being developed to combat cancer. It may be more accurate to place RNAi therapy in the context of all the other therapies, from advanced laser ablation at the level of individual cells to cytolethal fusion proteins, but with this accuracy comes a great sacrifice in public comprehensibility. Science is detailed, science is convoluted, and science is very nuanced. But unless we're willing to write and peer-review multi-chapter articles for the popular press, if those outlets would even carry the required tomes, we must tell a complex story simply and linearly in order for anyone but the most educated and avidly interested members of the public to understand it. Using widely understood cliches as vehicles to convey that comprehension is not just necessary, it's laudable.

I do not mean to impugn the intelligence of the general population. Perhaps naively, I still believe that the public is usually smarter than we give them credit for. But at the same time, scientific communication is a form of technical communication with clearly defined words and standards. We use "attenuated", "potentiated", "significantly", "stochastically", "sufficient", and "necessary" in very specific ways that don't necessarily* translate into normal, everyday public usage. We can't well use these standards to communicate effectively to the public, instead we must speak to the public on the public's terms, which by and large will involve either sports analogies or cliches. The above maligned cliches are here to stay, and they remain quite useful. If they continue to help convey broad understanding of scientific concepts, then I will continue to welcome them and their use.

*Like that.

UPDATE (tweets):
[@ToasterSunshine] @BoraZ @edyong209 | In defense of the "5 atrocious science cliches": http://bit.ly/15vgZL | Must speak to the public on the public's terms.

edyong209@ToasterSunshine You present false choice between cliches and jargon. Entirely possible to write lay-friendly copy w/o cliches.
edyong209@ToasterSunshine Or at the very least, without seriously misleading cliches.

ToasterSunshine@edyong209 Yes, sometimes cliches may be overused/misleading. But to call for a ban takes tools away from communicating scientists.
ToasterSunshine@edyong209 Scientists get jargon + don't need cliches or analogous metaphors as vehicles for understanding research. Public probably does.

edyong209@ToasterSunshine If tools are crap, they won't be missed. Good writers/communicators ought not to rely on cliches *anyway*.
edyong209@ToasterSunshine Neither article nor I calling for end to analogy/metaphor but end to MISLEADING ones.
edyong209@ToasterSunshine Again, I think you're presenting false choice between jargon and cliches. Metaphors are good but we can do better.

betsymason@toastersunshine I don't advocate a ban on metaphors for science, just the most overused, hyperbolic & annoying cliches. We can do better.

ToasterSunshine@edyong209 @betsymason I don't dispute that "paradigm shift" is overplayed. I do stand firmly against anything that attenuates science comm.

edyong209@ToasterSunshine Not attenuation. Sci-com benefits if misleading terms are lost, writers forced to think creatively. Atten'g BAD comm= good.

ToasterSunshine@edyong209 Agreed less bad comm good, but cliches not always misleading/bad. Cliches often help capture interest and sustain story reading.
ToasterSunshine@edyong209 See rec Herceptin research: "Herceptin magic bullet against breast cancer stem cells" vs. "Herceptin inhibits even HER2- tumors".
ToasterSunshine@edyong209 HER2 = jargon, but HER2 also absolute key to story. Accurate inclusion in headline turns general audience away. Need interest.

Dishonesty In Science Media (Toaster Burns Bullshit #1)

Sometimes one reads things so egregious that they can't help but let out a snarl under their breath at the dishonest pomposity of it. Today I was combing the Huffington Post, hoping, perhaps naively, that there'd be some good science coverage there. Instead, I found this. I did a double take, reading it twice to see if this dude really thought we were stupid enough to buy into his bull. Then I saw that he was in earnest, and I literally roared at the screen. Luckily I am alone in the lab today, or else my lab mates might think me even more daft.

So I turned off the Dr. Dre and turned on Tricky thinking that perhaps it wouldn't seem so stupid after I'd calmed down a bit. I spend 2h splattering data here and there trying to distract myself, but, no, I am still pissed off at this bullshit.

So here is #1 in what is probably going to become a dihearteningly long series: Toaster Burns Bullshit. Point by point:

(Context: It should be noted that Fred Hahn is pouting, spouting, and posturing here after appearing on the Dr. Oz show.)

What was not discussed, to my great chagrin, was the issue of diet and obesity.

This issue is of great concern to me, having two daughters in public school where the cafeterias are obesity central.

Here we see Fred Hahn trying to scare up some parental street cred. Teh Stupid comes later, so bear with, please.

I was quite shocked that Dr. Oz failed to ask me a single question on the issue. Either he didn't read my book or found what I had to say on the issue too diametrically opposed to his views. But whatever the case may be, he ignored the issue. A shame, because he has the power to sway millions of Americans as to how they should eat for optimal health.

Here's the pouting.

If your child is eating real food, you are on the right track. Real is defined by foods that once either walked, crawled, swam, flew or grew.

Logically, this includes bugs. "Real food" does not include wax fruits, plastic pancakes, or Play-doh. Nor your Doritos. So if you're not banning your children from everything that came in a plastic bag or a can or made your life a little bit easier in any way whatsoever, then YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!!11!! And therefore you're obviously a nasty, horrible person who doesn't love your kids as much as Fred Hahn loves his.

If your child is eating food that was manufactured, you are on the wrong track.

See? You're a failure. Shame on you!!!

The mainstay of your child's diet should be fat and protein. Next in line -- vegetables and some fruit.

This is the opening shot of Teh Stupid.

Refrain from grain in all its forms. In the end, grain is nothing more than sugar, and sugar is caustic to the system. Perhaps this is why Dr. Oz did not bring up the issue. He would have had to debate me on this since he supports eating grains and is essentially anti-low carb. Low carb diets have been shown over and over again to be healthful as well as the most potent formula to combat obesity and diabetes.

And here's the rest of the can.

This, right here, is what pissed me off right thoroughly. This is dishonest, and this is bullshit.

Remember:

C₆H₁₂O_{6 (aq)} + 6O_{2 (g)} → 6CO_{2 (g)} + 6H₂O _(l) ΔG = -2880 kJ per mole of C₆H₁₂O₆

_{This is kind of important. You know, it's just the chemical reaction that drives ATP synthesis and allows metazoan cells to live. But, ZOMG!, it starts with SUGAR! And SUGAR is CAUSTIC to "THE SYSTEM"! Therefores, the glycolysis that drives cellular respiration must also be CAUSTIC and that means it's EVIL and is singlehandedly responsible for the obesity epidemic in the U.S.A.! Damn you, thou sinister hexokinase! How could you ever do this to us, o' glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase!? ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG! Teh Evil Grains!}

_{Figure A: Bread is evil, you just don't know it.}

_{Yes, fats can be oxidized and made into sugar to be used in cellular respiration for energy, but to recommend that children eat a diet primarily made up of fats and proteins is irresponsible and dangerous. Mr. Hahn is making a broad prescription here when a much more nuanced dietary solution is called for (maybe you get that if you buy his book). Letting a child eat lard and Slim Jims fufills his requirements (and both lard and Slim Jims once walked about), but this isn't going to help them at all, and in fact will make them worse off in the long run (}if nothing else, _{due to the nitrosamines in the Slim Jims). Low carb diets work for some obese adults, but that does not make them a panacea, especially not for children who are naturally going to need a diverse array of nutritious foods to develop normally. It is one thing to recommend not allowing kids to eat candy and soda, but it is quite another to tell parents, who may be just as poorly informed as Fred Hahn himself, that the whole wheat bread of their childrens' peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich is making them fat (more likely to be the minivan and X-box than anything else, really).}

_{FURTHERMORE, since he has demonized natural starches as being nothing more than evil sugar, I find it puzzling that he has not also condemned meats due to their high glycogen content. What's up with this? Just as starch in grains is a polymer of glucose, so too is glycogen, just with a different tertiary structure. Seriously, if you're going to be stupid, please at least be consistent.}

It's a tad sad when an expert as famous as he is side-steps science in favor of a personal agenda. This is not to say Dr. Oz is purposefully keeping the truth from the public. It is to say, however, that he has an immense responsibility to learn all there is to know on the subject if he is going to place himself in the public eye and wield such enormous influence.

And here's the egotistical posturing, which Mr. Hahn manages to pull off with all the grace and subtlety of a 4-year-old brat. It is also dishonest for him to try to question Dr. Oz's credibility and authority when he didn't cite a single research article, nor even a newspaper article.

It should also be noted that Fred Hahn is the CEO of Serious Strength* and has never heard the term "conflict of interest" before.

*Located in the Upper West Side and Waldorf-Astoria of New York City, New York. Perhaps the rather insular environment has fostered his ability to deceive those who buy his book, his clients, and maybe even himself. Here's a gem from the Serious Strength website FAQs: "The exercise scientists use a treadmill fatigue/oxygen uptake test to guesstimate a person's level of fitness."