Have you ever thought that maybe English has plateaued when it comes to its ability to describe new things? You should have.
Science, traditionally divided into chemistry, biology, physics, geology and other basics, has been blurred more then ever in the last ten years. It’s getting to be difficult to classify and taxonomize scientists anymore, and we invented those procedures. No one is sticking to their zone. I’m not just talking about minor fusions, such as biochemistry, geophysics, “social science” and others. No, no, it has become much worse.
Take the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University. This is not a nerdy fashion school, like the name would suggest (although I would like to visit a place where they are using genetically-modified kelp to make some comfortable evening ware.) Here’s an institution which has a good faculty, good goals, and a healthy amount of sunlight. (“Healthy” may not be the right word. Let’s change it to…”char-broiling”.) But in spite of their accomplishments, the Institute does seem to be suffering from a major language identity crises.
Allow me to quote them.
The main subdivisions of the Institute include: Applied Nanobioscience, Bioelectronics and Biosensors, BioOptical Nanotechnology, Environmental Biotechnology, and Evolutionary Functional Genomics.
Confused yet? There’s more.
Let’s look at Applied Nanobioscience. In their overview, their stated mission goal is to “merge new technologies from nanoscience, microelectromechanical systems, polymer and ambient intelligence with genomics and molecular biology.” Sounds like just the kind of place that you’d want to work if you always dreamed of going to college to major in the field of bionanomoleculoelectrogeoopticobotomechophysicochemology…with a minor in French Lit.
The problem here is not the desire for becoming interdisciplinary. Its the intrinsic concept that there were disciplines to begin with. We’ve become so set in our standard perception of scientific divisions and latin prefices (prefixes?) that when new fields emerge that combine everything, our ability to describe our jobs in English just collapses in on itself. Maybe they don’t have this problem in other languages. I hope not. Maybe its easier in Mandarin (Never thought I’d ever say that.)
I therefore suggest that all new science fields be given completely new names. No more of this confusing combinatory practice. For example, I hereby dub “microelectromechanical systems” as “Tinyzap Dynamove”, applied nanobioscience as “Useful Teensylife” and biooptical nanotechnology as “Jorge”.
Once we learn to apply these titles–we’ll have to start introducing them in elementary school textbooks– I believe the world will be a much easier place to describe. In fact, every new academic field in any profession needs to just start a random naming list, like they have for hurricanes and military operations.
Undergrads, this one is on you. Please petition your school to start the Renaisauce “New Names For New Fields” initiative in your academic institution. How fantastic will it be when you go out on the town, picking up on potential dates, and impressing your prospect because you’re smart enough to major in Jorge?
Comments are closed.