I know there's one or two professional wordsmiths read this 'blog, and I've been having a great time over at Pavlov's Cat just recently. I am going to try to get that part of my readership to consider something.
Alex links to a piece in the NY Times, that raises an interesting point;
Molecular biology is the science of this century. We should be able to build some great clichés on it. But the language of this science doesn’t even give us a toehold. It’s like trying to climb a beaver slide after you’ve been walking through a bog. Perhaps scientists can understand each other when they speak of mRNA’s[sic], and sequencing, and so on. Genomic science needs better words.
Maybe this is the way to get the population at large more clued up about science — get the scientific language out of the keyboards of the ologists and into the mouths of babes, as it were. And while we're at it, maybe the traffic can be two-way so that scientists start writing in language that is understandable.
So if you're feeling a quark short of a neutron, or perhaps a hydrogen bond short of a helix, please post suggestions here (Nigel, don't say a bloody word </voice="Izzard">).




Comments
Ahem ...
Posted by: Nige | September 21, 2006 05:28 PM
... well it's not rocket science.
Boom-tish!
Posted by: Nige | September 21, 2006 05:41 PM
Heh heh.
Hmm, what is the biological equivalent of that?
Posted by: BK | September 21, 2006 08:08 PM
Ah ha, hence the comment on lablit! LOL I'm gonna have a think about this...I shall post here and at tidylies...
Posted by: tideliar | September 22, 2006 03:09 AM
I'm sure 'big, angry macrophage' (from last week) lends itself to a metaphor. The Queensland rozzers, maybe? Although they're more auto-immune dysfunctional . . . or perhaps just a phosphate short of a second messenger.
Posted by: BK | September 22, 2006 07:56 AM