• London blog by London

    Musings on London science.

    • What’s your favourite science cliché?

      Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 14:36 UTC

      Apropos of nothing (itself a bit of a platitude), let’s see if we can put together the definitive list of scientific clichés. We can get a measure of just how insidious they are by Googling in quote marks.

      To start with, that old favourite “Release of calcium from intracellular stores” gets 49,000 hits. Our very own Henry Gee releases his personal calcium with gusto and aplomb, being the first hit on Google.

      My own bugbear is the black hole cliché—from which no popsci author can escape, not even Hawking.

      Surprisingly, though, the phrase “From which nothing can escape, not even light” only garners 407 hits on Google, with its cousin “From which nothing, not even light, can escape” adding 382 hits.

      So, what are your favourite science clichés, and can anything beat the calcium meme?

      Last updated: Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 14:36 UTC

      • Comments

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 16:05 UTC
          Henry Gee said:

          ‘implications for therapy’ (230,000 hits)

          ‘It has not escaped our notice’ (14,200 hits)

          ‘This raises more questions than it answers’ (1,030 hits)

          ‘Excuse me, madam, but does this bus go to the station’ (4 hits)

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 16:15 UTC
          Eva Amsen said:

          I don’t know how to phrase it to make it Googlable in quotes, but I think Henry covered it with “implications for therapy” – it’s that phrase at the end of every single molecular biology item in the news, that suggests that it’s one step closer to a cure. Oh, wait, that’s my search right there. Hold on.

          “One step closer to a cure” 14,200 hits

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 16:28 UTC
          Frank Norman said:

          ‘further research needed’ – 520,000 hits

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 16:33 UTC
          Sabine Hossenfelder said:

          If and only if – 4,490,000
          This study shows – 720,000

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 16:47 UTC
          Brian Clegg said:

          Sorry, Sabine, I have to request ‘if and only if’ to be disqualified – it doesn’t have to be scientific.

          Starting gently with “scientists have found” (1,040,000), am I allowed “scientists have” (6,100,000) as any sentence saying "scientists have…’ is a cliche?

          Failing that, how about “source of vitamins” (530,000) or “a new study” (5,840,000) – okay not always science – or mad scientist (3,580,000).

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 16:49 UTC
          Brian Clegg said:

          Incidentally, Matt, when you say ‘the black hole cliche’ are you suggesting that the term ‘black hole’ is itself a cliche? Surely you might as well argue that photon (say) is a cliche?

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 16:51 UTC
          Matt Brown said:

          No, I’m using ‘the black hole cliché’ as shorthand for the actual cliché that always follows the words black hole. To wit: ‘from which nothing can escape, not even light’.

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 17:04 UTC
          steffi suhr said:

          ‘the next ice age’ – 4,300,000..

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 17:05 UTC
          Frank Norman said:

          I detest ‘boffins at the university’ – 1,590

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 17:11 UTC
          Graham Steel said:

          A couple of obvious media regulars:-

          “wonder drug” (662,000)
          “miracle cure” (781,000)

          But romping ahead thus far, is:-

          “according to latest scientific research” (13,900,000)

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 17:12 UTC
          Matt Brown said:

          I’m going to have to normalise by word count. Something like ‘wonder drug’ is sure to get more hits than ‘Release of calcium from intracellular stores’.

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 17:33 UTC
          Anna Kushnir said:

          “Physiological relevance” – 2,930,000 hits. I argue it should be higher.

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 17:36 UTC
          Matt Brown said:

          Is that with quote marks, Anna? I only get 168,000

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 17:40 UTC
          Frank Norman said:

          I wonder whether there should be a sub-section for the equivalent search in Google Scholar? That would pick up scientific cliches rather than journalistic cliches.

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 18:32 UTC
          steffi suhr said:

          ‘The next ice age’ in Google Scholar (I added ‘ocean’ as a seperate keyword, to get rid of some cell biology..) – now down to 313. Those 313, now with journalistic cliches (presumably) removed, amaze me though.

          More Google Scholar:
          ‘a quantum leap in understanding’ – 76 (another 34 if understanding is replaced by knowledge).

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 18:48 UTC
          Eva Amsen said:

          I realized “closer to a cure” would give even more (for those instances that just say “Scientists closer to a cure!” or “we are closer to a cure!”)

          Google: 153,000
          Google scholar: 272

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 19:08 UTC
          Corie Lok said:

          My favourites: “paradigm shift” and “holy grail”

          In fact, Nature recently ran a feature that delves into words and phrases that are overly used in science but have vague or controversial meanings: “paradigm shift” “complexity” “significant” are some of the words discussed.

          I’ve often found the word “system/systems” very interesting. It can refer to just about anything.

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 19:33 UTC
          James Aach said:

          The first four things I thought of were already taken. I guess that’s why they are cliches.

          “green energy” = 2,610,000

          “carbon free” = 561,000

          “deadly radiation” = 24,600 hits

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 04 Nov 2008 - 19:37 UTC
          Cath Ennis said:

          “Necessary but not sufficient” = 567,000 hits

          “more research is needed” adds 1,160,000 hits to the 520,000 that Frank got for “further research needed”.

        • Date:
          Wednesday, 05 Nov 2008 - 06:37 UTC
          Bob O'Hara said:

          “statistically significant” gets 6,690,000.
          ""p<0.05" gets 10,500,000 (using the advances search, otherwise it gets 45,600,000)

          I hate you all

          Graham – did you put quote marks around “according to latest scientific research” when you searched? That ensures it searches for that specific string, otherwise Google will search for any page with all of those words, in any part of the page. With it in quotes, I get 79 hits (which looks too low. Hmmm).

        • Date:
          Wednesday, 05 Nov 2008 - 09:08 UTC
          Brian Clegg said:

          @Frank – I detest ‘boffins at the university’

          Steady on, Frank, some of my best friends are ‘boffins at university.’

        • Date:
          Wednesday, 05 Nov 2008 - 10:04 UTC
          Henry Gee said:

          ‘science has proved’ – 61,400

          Buts also

          ‘richard dawkins’ – 3,750,000

          ‘henry gee’ – 340,000

          Bastard.

          However …

          ‘Atheism’ – 7,270,000

          ‘God’ – 483,000,000

          :)

        • Date:
          Thursday, 06 Nov 2008 - 11:08 UTC
          Cristian Bodo said:

          “Nature vs Nurture”

          “Evolutionary theory predicts…”

          “[whatever you may think of] offers a selective advantage”

        • Date:
          Thursday, 06 Nov 2008 - 11:48 UTC
          Mike Fowler said:

          “Global warming” gets about 38,200,000 in regular google, or 198,000 in scholar.

          “Long term climate change” (which I believe is a more suitable cliché description) drops to 50,700, or a scholarly 4,140.

          “unicycling girrafes” get a respectable 283 in the real world, but none of those were scholarly girrafes. Is NN not considered a scholarly website? Surely not, with such swarthy worthy, heated, intellectual debates.

        • Date:
          Saturday, 08 Nov 2008 - 13:50 UTC
          Charles Darwin said:

          ‘a glass of sherry’ (3,340,000)

          only a little longer and I shall pwn Professor Dawkins

        • Date:
          Saturday, 08 Nov 2008 - 22:45 UTC
          Stephen Curry said:

          Is ‘global warming’ a cliché?

          ‘rocket science’ (2,950,000)

        • Date:
          Sunday, 09 Nov 2008 - 02:33 UTC
          Bora Zivkovic said:

          “silver bullet” – 2,920,000 on Google and 19,500 on Scholar.

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 11 Nov 2008 - 17:49 UTC
          Matt Brown said:

          “sheds new light” 826,000

          I hate that phrase.

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 11 Nov 2008 - 18:22 UTC
          Mike Fowler said:

          Depends if there’s an apostrophe:

          “My shed’s new light is brighter than a scientific abstract”

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 11 Nov 2008 - 20:34 UTC
          Bob O'Hara said:

          “brighter than a thousand stars”, surely?

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 11 Nov 2008 - 20:37 UTC
          Brian Derby said:

          “scientific cliche” 140 hits on Google, 8 on Scholar and none on Web of Science.

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 11 Nov 2008 - 20:42 UTC
          Brian Derby said:

          And as I clearly have nothing better to do;

          “life on Mars” 4,800,000 on Google, 6,540 on Scholar and 413 on Web of Science

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 11 Nov 2008 - 21:43 UTC
          Joel Harp said:

          How about “endangered species”?

          Ex.:Rocket surgeons capable of crocheting a decent comforter are an endangered species.

          “endangered species” 8,520,000 hits on Google
          remarkably
          “endangered feces” 46,900 hits on Google

        • Date:
          Tuesday, 11 Nov 2008 - 22:50 UTC
          Henry Gee said:

          ‘Major breakthrough’ – 845,000

          Needless to say, use of this phrase is verboten in the hallowed halls of Nature and utterers are suspended from a third-floor window by their toenails until they agree to a hot night out with Richard P Grant recant.

        • Date:
          Wednesday, 12 Nov 2008 - 05:28 UTC
          Erika Cule said:

          Perhaps we should have a knockout style googlefight competition ?

          We might have to adapt it though – googlescholarfight anyone?

        • Date:
          Monday, 17 Nov 2008 - 10:33 UTC
          Peter McKeown said:

          ‘It is tempting to speculate’ – 146,000 on Google Scholar – a respectable 10% of all the Google hits…


Search blogs

web feed Want a blog?

Submit this post to

Advertisement