We all know that pencil lead is not lead and shooting stars are not stars. Names like these, which suggest a false meaning, are called “misnomers.” Many are created based on obsolete reasoning, still in use for historical reasons, and often lead to confusion.
Misnomers are found not only in colloquial language but in technical fields as well. “Organic” compounds were so named since they were once thought to be produced only in living organisms. However, 200 years after the successful synthesis of organic compounds in the lab, the arbitrary division between “organic” and “inorganic” chemistry remains. In fact, two well respected journals are titled “Bioinorganic Chemistry” and “Inorganic Biochemistry” – quite some twists and turns. One might see layers of history here, but no conceptual rigor.
It can be challenging for mathematicians and physicists to model systems loaded with misnomers. Parts labeled for antiquated reasons or practical convenience can be misleading, even for those familiar with the system. As humorously described in the article “Can a Biologist Fix a Radio?” terms in biology are often coined quite liberally. While few would take MIC literally and model it as “the Most Important Component,” there are subtler distinctions to be made. For example, metabolism is “the set of chemical transformations in living organisms;” however, metabolites are just a subset of molecules participating in metabolism – the “small” ones. Cornish-Bowden, a prominent enzymologist, has a more logical view:
“...proteome is part of the metabolome.”
It is no wonder that many physicists dismiss biological systems as “unamenable” to theoretical treatment due to the woeful lack of conceptual clarity. Distilling lucidity out of such hazy concepts is indeed non-trivial, as evidenced by Mark Newman’s uneasy grappling with these conventionally used terms in his book
Another example is “enzyme.” For most students of biology, the word enzyme is immediately associated with a protein. In actuality, ribosomes, one of the most common enzymes in the cell, are composed of at least 50% RNA. RNA itself can also act as a powerful enzyme, as demonstrated by Nobel-winning experiments 30 years ago. Cornish-Bowden, again, sees deeper:
Of course, it might be not so surprising that, as an enzymologist, Cornish-Bowden sees everything in the cell as a catalyst, just as Luis, trained in statistical physics, sees everything as data. In fact, John Padgett has gone one step further, bringing the abstraction of catalysis and autocatalytic networks to social transformations.
A major part of developing the laws of universal gravitation by Newton was the conceptual development of mass. Careful conceptual preparation will pay off in the long run in developing models, since otherwise, one risks the danger of, as Andrea put it, connecting any two points and claiming to have found another (and another) power-law. It may feel grand for a while, but the ultimate measure of our work is the real insight gained.
Finally, here is a humorous cartoon and an amusing video clip as reward for reaching the end.
-Meilin