For the longest time science journalists have been misusing the word "breakthrough." What they usually mean is any scientific discovery that merits a press release by a university or a scientific journal. Both of these sources are biased and it's the role of competent science writers to recognize that bias and report the real significance of a scientific publication.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.
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.
ReplyDelete"Advance of the year" sounds good to me.