Kaitlin P. McCreery, Ph.D.

Biologists love anthropomorphisms. Anthropomorphisms are a cute human-centric type of metaphor that is surprisingly common during informal scientific discussion. Meanwhile, many scientists consider them inappropriate in science discourse, arguing that we work in a field that is based in objectivity and precision. Indeed, there can be some serious misunderstandings when anthropomorphizing biophysical or biochemical events; cells do not “want” anything, “feel” forces, and can’t “remember” differently. Consequently, students are taught specifically not to anthropomorphize anything in science, helping to keep the facts straight and the thinking systematic.

My current department is full of postdocs that love coffee. Most days we are busy on our feet, but some days are crucial for analyzing piles of data. One or two afternoon coffee breaks can help to break up the deep focus on these days. While taking a coffee, we lean against the emerald green cabinets and talk about “How does the cell remember it has been deformed?” along with other hysterical topics. When viewed through a precise lens, these conversations in the break room are so simple and silly, almost childish. And, indeed, maybe they are. Then why is anthropomorphizing in science so ubiquitous?

Even scientists must remember that we are all merely human. Generally speaking, the human brain evolved from a place of understanding relationships, community, and intention. However, using anthropomorphisms isn’t just a matter of convenience or universal language. It is actually specifically beneficial to use metaphors when chatting with a colleague about big ideas, as we can understand and solve problems faster when we use them [1].

Let’s take a step back, and I’ll make a major disclaimer: anthropomorphisms do not belong everywhere. In fact, they do not belong in most places in the laboratory, because the only way to triumph over illogical thinking is to empirically test your hypothesis, so that you can throw out those that fail [2]. You won’t hurt the cell’s feelings.

As famously described, there two sides to this coin: “day science” (the laboratory/professional settings) and “night science” (the chatting while getting a beer or coffee). Day-science language is crucial, to speak precisely in order to follow the scientific method. However, night-science is almost even deeper in content, because we as people need a language of intuition.

In the end, the cells will have the last laugh. (get it?)