• London blog by London

    Musings on London science.

    • Science clichés: the reckoning

      Wednesday, 12 Nov 2008 - 17:13 UTC

      Thanks to everyone who suggested a science cliché in response to my recent post. I can now reveal the official top fives, broken down by number of words. Remember, the terms have to be surrounded by speech marks. Note, I re-searched every term today, as the numbers differ slightly depending on when you search.

      Tomorrow, I’ll do the same for Google Scholar results.

      Two words
      Statistically significant 9,340,000
      Paradigm shift 2,910,000
      Rocket science 2,840,000
      Mad scientist 2,480,000
      Major breakthrough 842,000

      Three words
      A new study 5,820,000
      Scientists have found 1,050,000
      Sheds new light 826,000
      This study shows 720,000
      Implications for therapy 388,000

      Four words
      Necessary but not sufficient 1,270,000
      More research is needed 977,000
      Closer to a cure 139,000
      Long term climate change 137,000
      The next ice age 120,000

      Five or more words
      According to the latest research 121,000
      Release of calcium from intracellular stores 50,600
      One step closer to a cure 41,900
      It has not escaped our notice 23,200
      This raises more questions than it answers 686

      Last updated: Wednesday, 12 Nov 2008 - 17:13 UTC

      • Comments

        • Date:
          Monday, 17 Nov 2008 - 11:35 UTC
          Maxine Clarke said:

          Those top five are dear, familiar friends of mine. Nice to see they are friends of lots of other people too!

        • Date:
          Monday, 17 Nov 2008 - 11:56 UTC
          Richard Grant said:

          I wonder if we should perform a similar analysis from an editorial point of view? In other words, what phrases/cliches are most likely to be used when a sentence half the length would do just as well?

          Examples:

          • Samples are subjected to centrifugal fields…
          • It has recently been shown that $a and $b recognize RNA in a sequence specific manner (#ref)

          I’ve seen both recently. I changed them to

          • Samples are centrifuged…
          • $a and $b bind to specific RNA sequences (#ref)

          respectively

        • Date:
          Monday, 17 Nov 2008 - 11:58 UTC
          Richard Grant said:

          (actually, the second example was worse than that. It said that the proteins bind to RNA ‘in a sequence specific manner’ and then gave the sequence. I think I left out ‘specific’ altogether, as it’s kinda implied, yeah?)

        • Date:
          Monday, 17 Nov 2008 - 12:16 UTC
          Maxine Clarke said:

          How about:
          increased female resistance to extra-pair courtship would lead to increased infertility due to pleiotropic effects of resistance alleles resulting in maladaptive resistance to within-pair copulations.
          ?

        • Date:
          Monday, 17 Nov 2008 - 12:24 UTC
          Henry Gee said:

          Nope.

        • Date:
          Monday, 17 Nov 2008 - 12:31 UTC
          Mike Fowler said:

          @Maxine: “Wimmin. They just don’t know what’s good for them”.

          Yours, Alf Garnett

        • Date:
          Monday, 17 Nov 2008 - 12:56 UTC
          steffi suhr said:

          Maxine – hard to beat.

        • Date:
          Monday, 17 Nov 2008 - 13:01 UTC
          Marco Boscolo said:

          Ouch! I’m really disappointed I didn’t contribute to the poll! Nice one, Matt.


Search blogs

web feed Want a blog?

Submit this post to

Advertisement