Science communication and the figure of speech

I’ve been thinking about words. Ideal you might imagine, given my role on the magazine. But specifically I have been caught up on metaphors and, of course, their distinctly anaemic cousin; the analogy.

Junk DNA, dark matter, selfish genes – perhaps some of the more famous uses of the metaphor in scientific discourse. I am firmly of the opinion that they are crucial in science communication. As a consequence, I may very well be guilty of over use. You might even say that when faced with a complex idea I am rather too quick to enter the safe harbour of the metaphor (…ahem).

But to me, figures of speech like this offer up a very real way to turn hard data into a relatable concept. They allow me to push my all-to human, often limited, mind to a new place. A place that will allow me to more readily grasp the many concepts I am privileged to be exposed to. Also – perhaps more selfishly – it helps me express my utter fascination and admiration for the thinkers and experimentalists behind them.

But more than this, I think they can help the readers to quickly form a construct of the concept trying to be conveyed – readers which may not have access to advanced mathematics, or reams of experimental data, or even a background in that particular discipline. A very powerful tool, in fact. But with great power comes…well you know the rest.

It needs always to be in the fore of the mind of the metaphor user that when wielded clumsily they can be less than helpful. The excellent science writer and broadcaster Philip Ball has written very well on this topic. He has thinks that once a scientific metaphor takes hold it can be, to put it bluntly, a bugger to shift. He suggests that scientific metaphor runs the risk of becoming dogma – thinking stimulated by the work of two psychologists; Paul H. Thibodeau and Lera Boroditsky from Stanford University.

They have evidence to suggest that metaphors have profound influence on how we think and act with respect to important societal issues. Even a single metaphor, they say, can induce substantial differences in opinion about how to solve social problems.

Very far from benign then, these ‘mere’ figures of speech. But I don’t think that as scientists, we need to worry unduly. Science has always been the arch-enemy of dogma. And if in the communication of your ideas, concepts and findings, I am found to be guilty of metaphorical misuse, then I trust you implicitly to swiftly and as harshly as you see fit put me straight.

So much so that I’ll make you a deal. I’ll continue to get carried away with excitement at your findings and express as much in writing (occasionally dabbling in metaphor), and if you sense that I cross a line (metaphorical of course…) then email me and I’ll publish a second attempt. Or even better, I’ll publish your attempt – once again this is your magazine and I don’t mean that, in any way, metaphorically.

Phil Prime, Editor