By assembling this list, I don’t mean to say that no one should ever use these words. I am not teaching people how to write scientific papers. 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, deadening euphemisms, or meaningless cliches.
Access (verb)
And/or (Logic gates do not belong in prose)
Anomalous
Anthropogenic
Breakthrough (unless you are covering Principia Mathematica)
Captive observation
Clinical setting
Community ecology (this ban does not extend to the subject of community ecology)
Component
Context
Cracked the code (especially when it comes to sequencing DNA. DNA is not the same thing as the genetic code)
Demographic leveling
Elucidate
et al
Facilitate
Food source (when just “food” will do)
Forcings
“Further research is needed” (or anything like that)
Holy Grail
Immunocompromised
Impacted (unless you’re talking about teeth or bowels)
In (when used in phrases like “experiments in mouse“)
In vitro
In vivo
Informed (people can be informed. As for “The discussion was informed…”? Ack.)
Insult (referring to an injury)
Interaction
Interdisciplinary
Interface (especially as a verb)
Intermediate host
Interested in (as in, “Dr. Frankenstein is interested in tissue regeneration.” Transforms passion and excitement into a boring parlor game)
It has been shown (noxious in many ways)
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
Modulate
Molecular systematists
Morphology
Multiple (as in many? Then just use many)
Musty (when referring to museum collections, unless those collections are in fact in an attic with holes in the roof through which rain steadily falls)
Non-marine environment
Novel (the adjective is banned. The noun, as in War and Peace, is fine.)
Optimum
Orthogonal
Paradigm shift
Parameter (also, parameterize)
Pathogenicity
Phylogenetics
Predation
Predator-Prey Relationship
Processes
Proxies
Recently (when you actually mean “ten years ago”)
Recruit, recruitment (unless you’re writing about the Army)
Regime (unless you’re referring to Mobutu in Zaire)
Robust (as in, robust data. But robust wine? Yes, please.)
Scientists have learned in recent years that… (A dodge to escape explaining what actually happened)
Seminal
Sociopolitical
Substrate [try things like dirt, mud, rock, etc.]
Sustainability
System (as in, “He chose mouse as a system to study”)
This (if there is no antecedent in sight)
Transmissibility
Trivial (in the way scientists like to use it: “This problem is trivial.” Non-trivial is even worse.)
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.)
9(unknown*no*no*0)&guid=ON){kind=small}
![[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.
February 27th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
A term that should be banned in science writing: “Some scientists think…
August 3rd, 2010 at 4:23 am
[...] every word. (Check out Zimmer’s list of banned science writing [...]
August 3rd, 2010 at 3:50 pm
so-called
August 5th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
johnk:
I think this is an important point, and it reminds me of one of my pet hates: “Let me unpack that.” (As in: using jargon, then backing up, announcing that you’ll “unpack” what you’ve just said, and only then explaining it.)
Not so common in writing, at least what I’ve seen, but annoying enough to hear it being used in talks and conversations.
“Packing” is a neat metaphor for describing the conciseness of jargon, but if you know you’re going to have to explain things in simple terms, just do it right away instead of making a big deal out of it.
August 9th, 2010 at 10:33 am
[...] for considering “How are you going to be understood.” He directed participants to his “index of banned words in science writing.” For example, finding yourself inclined to employ the word “utilize” vs. “use.” Don’t [...]
August 11th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Absolutely brilliant, not to mention elegant. Clearly there is some genetic overlap with a certain genius named Ben. Did you mention nature/nurture? (My memory is spotty but I have an excellent forgettory.)
August 11th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Seconding “seminal”!
August 12th, 2010 at 12:10 am
What would make this list truly useful would be to add a selection of other words or phrases that could be used instead.
August 12th, 2010 at 12:19 am
Jackie–That would be giving a cheat sheet to my students.
August 12th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Thanks. Now I know why I enjoy your writing; you avoid whatever is currently chewing gum.
August 14th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Excellent list! Around is my personal addition.
around- as in “studies will be conducted around ____ “; or we will have discussions around ___.
August 15th, 2010 at 10:25 am
My problem is with words or phrases that cover up vague thinking with hand-waving, although I am no fan of redundancy, either. Why complain about “paradigm shift”? Because even to Kuhn it meant umpteen different things. Describe the change clearly instead. That said, most words on this list or any list also have a legitimate, tightly controlled usage.
Thanks for the food for thought. (Sorry!)
August 16th, 2010 at 4:14 am
My top two most overused words are ‘unique’, when it is not true, and ‘world-class’ (or ‘worldclass’ ), which doesn’t mean anything.
Thanks for your list.
August 22nd, 2010 at 3:34 pm
[...] [Update: See my continually updated edition of this list here.] [...]
August 22nd, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Generally (the word is literally meaningless)
August 23rd, 2010 at 5:53 am
I’m surprised that you haven’t yet listed ‘design’ and its derivatives, used in reference to the structure or function of biological organisms or their bits ‘n’ pieces.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
[...] The Index of Banned Words (The Continually Updated Edition) | The Loom | Discover Magazine http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/11/30/the-index-of-banned-words-the-continually-updated-... [...]
September 7th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
[...] banned from science writing, stimulated by the annoyingly prolific Carl Zimmer‘s list of such sins. (His fault you’re a sloth? — ed.) Some very good ones there, this being my [...]
September 29th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
I’d like to nominate “extirpate” and “fomite.”
October 24th, 2010 at 10:16 am
An alternative for in vivo and in vitro? I cant think of any that completely capture the menaings of these phrases. Scientific papers are written to be read by scientists, largely those that work in the same field. There is nothing wrong with Jargon, every discipline has it’s language. Generally saves alot of time, valuable word space, and avoids the need to explain every concept in pain-staking detail. Imust agree that some of the cliche’s such as ‘holy grail’ should be avoided, but this is just a matterof taste
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:46 am
Glad you nailed ‘elucidate’ already. Thanks!
Please add ‘deleterious’ instead of harmful.
And the cancer docs’ favorites: ‘poor outcomes’ or ‘adverse outcomes’ instead of deaths.
Kevin#63 — those two bits of Latin work out to ‘in a mouse’ or ‘in a dish’. That wasn’t so hard, was it? Science language is indeed efficient and precise — but only if you speak it, which most folks don’t. Precision is inversely related to audience size.
[CZ: Bates's law!]
November 19th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Two nominations: inform and robust
People should be informed, but meetings, regulations and “processes” should be presented with information. As in: “The discussion was informed by a recent article in the NYT.” “This study is intended to inform the development of new regulations for fishing.”
Wine and people can be robust, but not data. It does not have flavor or shape. What does a robust set of data look like, anyway? Perhaps it was rotund?
November 24th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Two really obvious ones:
* Methodology (when used to mean Method)
* Potentiality (always used to mean things which might happen. Especially noxious in the plural form ‘Potentialities’.)
November 24th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
[...] writers casually speak of visualisations, infographics and crowdsourcing. Have a look at Carl Zimmer’s famous list of “banned words” for more [...]
November 26th, 2010 at 10:07 am
Le parole che non dovrei dirti…
Esattamente un anno fa Carl Zimmer, uno dei più importanti scrittori di cose di scienza, uno che scrive su robe tipo New York Times, National Geographic, Scientific American, autore di libri celebrati, ha pubblicato sul suo blog “The Loom” un post ch…
November 26th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
I am afraid I think too many of the words on the list are commonly used, non-technical words with straightforward and useful meanings that will be understood by most adults and school students.
I would strike the following words off the list: “system”, “process”, “mechanism”, “multiple” and “literally”. Like most words they words can be clumsily misused, but that is the fault of the particular writer and not of the words/concepts themselves which can be useful in the right context.
Some evidence for my view is here. http://tomhartley.posterous.com/process-isnt-jargon and here: http://tomhartley.posterous.com/system-isnt-jargon
I haven’t yet heard a clear, reasoned argument against the use of these words. In essence I agree with namnezia’s comment above. You are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t accept that “mechanism” for example is a “pat and not very meaningful term”. or that I should “find a more interesting way to talk”. Can you make a more compelling case against these words? The list is thought-provoking, but if it is just about personal taste – I am not persuaded.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
[...] The Index of Banned Words (The Continually Updated Edition) | The Loom | Discover Magazine By assembling this list, I don’t mean to say that no one should ever use these words. I am not teaching people how to write scientific papers. 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, deadening euphemisms, or meaningless cliches. [...]
November 28th, 2010 at 9:33 am
It should be a dictionary not a list.
November 29th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Can “synergy,” “synergistic” and all of it’s ugly relatives be added to the list? The combined effect of them, added to other jargon in a sentence, is more than I can stand.
December 2nd, 2010 at 9:23 am
I question why predation is on the list, given that I study the evolution of chemical defenses against predation. At least in ecology, predation is a rather fundamental concept.
[CZ: Please read the introduction carefully. I never said that these words could never be used. Nor did I say that the concept of predation should be banned. What I am saying is that a word like predation in a popular book or article is a wasted opportunity.]
December 6th, 2010 at 1:33 am
[...] Carl Zimmer’s Index of Banned Words – good, good stuff. It was funny how many of the banned words showed up in the titles of [...]
December 6th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Could I ask that “musty” be added to the list when used to describe museum collections? Nature.com just did it again:
http://ff.im/-uJPbb
We appreciate their help in advertising the potential bounty held within our collection rooms, but “musty” suggests we are doing such a bad job of curation that we might as well give up.
[CZ: Very true. Attics are musty. Clean, metal cabinets in climate-controlled vaults are not.]
December 25th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
May I ask that visualize (as distinct from ‘see’) be added to the list. This substitution is used in medical writing and presenting.
I can visualize the ureter from the other side of the world… in the O/R in need to see it!
The combined effect of many of the substitutions on this list is that that diminish our language so that when a word on the list has a appropriate use it has become devalued by its misuse by someone trying to sound impressive beyond their ability or knowledge.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Relevant: A Crusade Against the Quest for the Holy Grail
http://www.neatorama.com/2010/09/07/a-crusade-against-the-quest-for-the-holy-grail/
January 13th, 2011 at 9:26 am
I once called graphene the “Susan Lucci of Nobel-worthy physics” in a blog post on Future-ish (http://goo.gl/JMa17). Folks loved it. Does that count as “plain yet elegant English”?
January 14th, 2011 at 8:45 am
‘God’, and most particularly ‘God particle’. May He strike down anyone writing about the LHC who dares to blaspheme thus.
January 14th, 2011 at 10:56 am
Maybe it’s too obvious, but “prove” is a big one. Besides the main reasons, “prove” tends to discount all of the previous research and leaves little room for future studies on the topic. Science is ongoing and collaborative.
January 14th, 2011 at 11:06 am
Earl Nightingale suggests that those people with the largest volcabulary always rise to the top of their field. However, knowing the meaning of lots of big words does not prevent me from writing in plain English.
Personally, I enjoy the challenge of taking a complex idea and explaining it so it can be understood by a broad range of people – without speaking down to them. This list is a fun guide to use while writing to inform, and it may help me avoid being annoying.
January 14th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
I would add biocompatible to the list. There are so many different reaction to a material implanted into an organism that biocompatibility is meaningless. A material can be bio-inert (elicit no response), bio-active (induce a favorable response), osteoconductive (bone can bond to the surface and grow along it), etc.
From a material science and materials engineering stand point your list would make it almost impossible for a material scientist to have a discussion about what they do since a lot of you banned words are material concepts not jargon. These concepts should be introduced and explained to non-material scientists when writing for that target audience. Example: The interface (one of your banned words) between the matrix and reinforcement is an important concept when discussing composites with non-material scientists.
January 14th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
What is the reasoning behind these words being “banned?” Such lists typify an arrogance that I have found to be all too common in science. Having worked in numerous occupations and industries over the years, I have found that science is one area where it is still considered O.K. to call someone an idiot to their face. Criticism is fine but it is pointless without explanation. In the absence of explanation, I just have to assume that the above list is just another opinion worth ignoring. Other than personal irritation, why should I not use these words to inform a public that really needs to understand some very complex topics?
January 14th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
[...] Galactica fanfic with Colonel Tigh sweatily humping Admiral Adama. And it was SICK. Anyhow, cut out these words, and you might be on to [...]
January 14th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Why “literally” is on the list, while “virtually” is not, I shall never understand.
January 14th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
[...] by limiting syntax sounds good at first hearing, but I think any actual attempt would end up like the discussion of Carl Zimmer’s list of banned words. Admittedly, the discussants are scientists rather than English professors, but there is not a lot [...]
January 20th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Can the list also include advice to use adverbs, um, sparingly? I have to remind myself of that…um, repeatedly…when I write. Avoiding really, actually, particularly, apparently, et al. Oops. I just used “et al.” But you get the idea. Apparently…oops…Bill Gates hates it when people say “actually,” and I think he’s got a good reason. Can we add these in along with “virtually” and “literally” as exclusions? Cleans up prose a bit.
Oh, and “animal model.” To the non-scientist or unfamiliar audience, that phrase does not mean what scientists think it means.
[CZ: As Ed Yong, adverbs are Satan's work]
January 20th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Here’s a vote for “issue” when it means “problem.”
January 20th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
I’m an ecologist, and I might be in the minority, but if I hear “Tangled Bank” one more time, I’m gonna barf. That goes for you too Carl (sorry).
[CZ: ?]
January 23rd, 2011 at 5:03 pm
[...] been reading a couple of old posts by Carl Zimmer over at The Loom, Death to Obfuscation! and the Index of Banned Words, which give a few hints on how to write more clearly for an audience outside your scientific field. [...]
January 23rd, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Where do you come down on “address?” For example, “We address gaps in our knowledge of XYZ.”
January 31st, 2011 at 1:22 am
You mentioned “insult” as regards an injury. Can we also include the opposite? “Injury” as regards receiving an insult?
One of the above critics questioned the purpose of “banning” words, when such words are deemed necessary to sufficiently discuss a highly complex topic.
I might offer in contrast the idea that many subjects only become highly complex because those people who write about the topics use overly complex terms instead of using simpler terms. I sometimes wonder if their purpose is to limit their audience to walking thesauri(?)
I don’t see the subject as being the literal banning of words. Instead, I see a person exercising control over the part of the world they are actually charged with controlling – their own classroom. I consent.
February 3rd, 2011 at 10:32 am
[...] blogs.discovermagazine.com Meta | 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 thi [...]
February 6th, 2011 at 10:46 am
[...] here’s a professor’s list of words banned from student essays. Actually, in this case I wholeheartedly [...]
February 24th, 2011 at 10:09 am
[...] spirit of what he’s saying, I’m not sure I buy Carl Zimmer’s idea that there are some words a science writer should always avoid. The main thing is to be aware of your audience so you [...]
May 21st, 2011 at 5:13 pm
[...] these 50 “quick list” writing tools. Purdue University’s OnLine Writing Lab Carl Zimmer’s banned words (updated regularly on The Loom, his [...]
December 1st, 2011 at 5:25 pm
I hope you mean “morphology” as a general noun rather than a proper noun, because it would make me very unhappy to have my science banned.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
[...] is it’s inaccessibility to the everyday person. Carl Zimmer has put together an “Index of Banned Words“. Words that should be vanquished from the vocabulary of scientists everywhere. The list [...]
December 22nd, 2011 at 8:00 am
[...] about words that mean something different in science than in regular use, and Carl Zimmer’s list of banned words has become essential reading for scientific communicators everywhere. We at DSN and in the [...]
January 24th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
In den Moser-Kliniken werden ausschließlich EU-zertifizierte Implantate verwendet, die in der regel ein Leben weit hinein ihrer Position fortdauer können.