data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ff919/ff9191a21126650a0f76338e60019dda19f63cf8" alt=""
Science usually advances incrementally, building slowly but surely on the work of others. Real "breakthroughs" are extremely rare.
All scientists know this so it comes as a major disappointment to see the publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) promoting a "Breakthrough" of the Year [Breakthrough of the Year: Human Genetic Variation]. Why couldn't this be a scientific achievement of the year or a scientific advance of the year? Either of those words gives a better impression than"breakthrough" and allows us to nominate real advances in science that aren't necessarily breakthroughs.
1 comment :
I agree. I think the word "breakthrough" should be reserved for truly momentous discoveries or developments, not simply the largest 5% of the daily flow of incremental advances.
"Advance of the year" sounds good to me.
Post a Comment