Not Much Novel Under the Sun

Abstract

Earlier this year, when the New England Journal of Medicine heralded the arrival of a new strain of pandemic flu, it did so in an article titled “Emergence of a novel swine-origin Influenza A (H1N1) virus in humans.” The explosive and inappropriate use of the word “novel” is itself spreading like a virus through the medical literature. To many students of English, referring to a virus as novel connotes the sense that its creation was associated with striking innovation and creativity. Unless the authors intended to make an argument about intelligent design or perhaps a heretofore undiscovered bioterror plot, it would seem more accurate to describe H1N1 as a new rather than a novel disease. The questionable use of the word novel is not an isolated phenomenon. In 1970, 1 in every 2500 papers in the Medline database contained the word “novel” in its title. By 2007, use of the word had grown—1 in every 71 papers contained the word novel. And it's not just that new things are being discovered more frequently. The percentage of titles with the word “new” in them has remained relatively flat, hovering at about 2% of all Medline articles for the past 40 years. In 1970, we saw one “novel” discovery for every 50 “new” ones. By 2007, that ratio had changed so that a “novel” discovery came along for every 1.45 “new” discoveries. What should we make of the steady rise in “novel” papers? We suggest that the trend represents two things. First, the growing ties between scientific and financial endeavors offer some explanation. United States legal codes list “novelty” as one of the conditions of patentability, thereby equating the word with commercially viable innovation. Of course, calling something novel does not make it patentable. The second likely explanation has been an increase in the degree to which authors of scientific papers resort to self-promotion and hyperbole in the effort to publish papers that will be noticed. Certainly, the growth in the sheer number of scientific articles that are published makes this tempting. If you want your papers to be read, there's nothing like a bit of self-aggrandizing puffery to try to stand out. Whether the motives are commercial or professional, however, scholarship is exactly what is at issue here. When scientists feel the need to resort to novel ways of saying “new,” even at the price of misrepresenting their meaning, the effect is to diminish the standing of their work.